Progress, Process, and Programming for the Future Youth Issues Paper 7
Bibliographic record
Abstract
consultation sponsored by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Family Health International (FHI)/YouthNet. The consultation, held in Washington, DC, was called “Taking Stock of Youth Reproductive Health and HIV Peer Education: Progress, Process, and Programming for the Future.” Susan Adamchak, PhD, wrote the report based on the presentations and discussions from the meeting and other related materials from major international publications. Adamchak, a consultant, has worked for FHI, the Population Council/FRONTIERS, and others. She has coordinated a major multisite youth operations research project that included peer education, has conducted evaluations of peer education projects, and has written on many youth reproductive health and HIV prevention topics. Chapter 2 on evidence of peer education success is based on the meeting presentation by Eleanor Maticka-Tyndale of the University of Windsor in Canada, who provided additional materials for this report, including the two tables and the list of studies she reviewed (see Appendix 2). Chapter 5, the conclusion, is based on the closing remarks made at the meeting by Mahua Mandal of USAID, the technical advisor for the YouthNet project.
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 | 0.022 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.005 |
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".