Using Gatekeeper Training as a CVE Tool: Replication and Evaluation of a Gatekeeper Program in Prince George's County, Maryland, United States, 2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated Global Citizen's Forum (GCF), an afterschool youth program designed as a peer gatekeeping program in the area of violent extremism. GCF was implemented in two private high schools in Maryland during spring of 2019. Although the study was designed as a quasi-experimental research with pre/post testing of treatment and control groups, implementation challenges resulted in design problems and a small sample, allowing only for exploratory study. The preliminary results suggest that GCF is associated with some statistically significant gains in participants' knowledge and attitude. The study also presents team's qualitative findings as well as GCF replication framework and financial cost analysis. An assessment of the GCF implementation experience and related observations indicates that GCF may be difficult to replicate due to community sensitivities about accepting the violent extremism threat and the ability of service providers to teach the GCF curriculum. For conclusive and reliable results, this study needs to be replicated with participation of a larger sample.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".