Youth Artists for Justice: Examining Participation in Social Movements and Envisioning Futures through Applied Theatre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines how racialized, socioeconomically under-resourced secondary school-age youth in Toronto conceptualize their current and future roles within contemporary social movements and the larger political sphere. This collaborative ethnodrama action research study, Youth Artists for Justice, involved 12 participants ages 15-20, consisting mainly of racialized, socioeconomically under-resourced youth. The study expands understanding of how youth envision and enact political participation within the current context of ongoing racism in this neoliberal era. A goal of the program was to garner within these particular youth a sense of hope and capacity to conceptualize and enact their political agency. This research contributes to scholarly discourses of drama methodology and secondary school-age youth participation in social movements by examining how ethnodrama as a methodology supports youth in further developing theories of change, envisioning their own potential political roles, and entering into participation on their terms. Applied theatre practices in this study created space to honour and to apply counter-hegemonic knowledges, to embrace and mobilize emotional expression, to disrupt power, to enrich collective agency, and to perform a public performance with political efficacy. Findings show the need to attend to the sense of existential displacement and foreboding that many youth participants reported experiencing when envisioning the future. Another major finding points to how the Toronto youth participants, through the theatre-making processes, related to the embodiment of solidarity. In this study, devised theatre work with marginalized youth serves as a means of analyzing, experiencing, and modeling solidarity and its strategic importance as a modality for countering systemic injustice. Using a critical youth studies and applied theatre lens, this research expands discourse on how youth desire and strategize the means by which to enact both major structural change and local movement-building outside of neoliberal structures.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".