Bibliographic record
Abstract
DOING DEMOCRACY IN "THIRD PLACES"democracy?What do they learn from the organizations and teams they are welcomed into?What democratic skills can they develop?How do they feel about the quality of their experience?How do their experiences differ in different settings?What are the best ways to recruit and retain young people in voluntary initiatives?This book presents findings from our collaboration with various stakeholders in Quebec's ecosystem of youth initiatives in democratic citizenship education.We wrote with youth workers and our partner organizations in mind; besides documenting and raising awareness of their impact on youth development and democratic community life, we hope this book will provide them with valuable insights on how to strengthen their programs, recruitment strategies, and practices-areas they are typically concerned with improving.We also hope that this book is easy to understand, and that the practical knowledge we have gathered can inspire and encourage non-profit organizations and their dedicated staff in this regard.In our research, we have taken an ethnographic rather than an evaluative approach.The goal of building partnerships with various organizations was to generate new knowledge about people's experiences in the initiatives we studied (see Gaudet, 2020).Currently, the bureaucratic tendency is to fixate on weighing the costs and benefits of government-funded youth programs.Instead, our team advocates observing for the sake of understanding.In other words, we set out to understand what young people experience in these programs and how these experiences help them learn what it means to live in a democracy.We believe that both researchers and society at large have much to learn about the role that civil society organizations play in young people's lives and the promotion of democratic values in local communities.This book is unique for its comprehensive approach.It seeks to raise awareness about youth experiences, make them visible, and to highlight the local and intergenerational community practices that welcome young people, support them, and initiate them into social, civic, and political action.To our knowledge, no published work of this kind exists in Quebec, and few works offer such an extensive and diversified range of case studies (see Gaudet et al., 2020).We hope that the methodology and conceptual vocabulary, which combine research from both the French and English geolinguistic spaces, will offer readers a fresh perspective on youth participation.Gaudet, S. (2020).Sur le terrain de la sociologie publique : enjeux éthiques d'une recherche collaborative sur les expériences d'éducation citoyenne des jeunes.SociologieS.https://doi.org/10.4000/sociologies.15416
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".