MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7056016065

Disengaged and Disenchanted Adolescents: An Arts-Based Case Study

2019· dissertation· en· W7056016065 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueQSpace (Queen's University Library) · 2019
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle accelerators and beam dynamics
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNucleofectionGestational periodTSG101DysgeusiaPretextHyporeflexia
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The pursuit of creating valuable learning experiences for adolescents is a complex challenge. The purpose of this study is to explore the experiences of a group of disengaged and disenchanted adolescents. I identified a gap in the literature; youth are often only quoted for comments affirming that interventions have been beneficial. The present study seeks to fill this gap by representing as directly as possible the experiences of participants that relate to their motivation and engagement. To investigate the processes at work that contribute to the general decline in motivation that occurs in early adolescence (Gottfried, Flemming & Gottfried, 2001; Harter, 1981; Whitlock, 2006), and that for some result in definitive disengagement with formal education, I used art elicitation to facilitate the communication of various experiences of school by one group of urban self-identified disengaged and disenchanted adolescents. The data were analyzed using traditional qualitative methods, as well as poetic inquiry, which offers aesthetic representations of reflexive research methods and meditations on significant themes and topics in the data. The visual and written data provide rich information about contemporary experiences of secondary school for the disengaged and disenchanted adolescent participants and inform a discussion of recommendations and personal discoveries.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.402
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQSpace (Queen's University Library)Same topicParticle accelerators and beam dynamicsFrench-language works237,207