Critical practice in youth engagement: Voices of practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Metro Toronto, since the devastating violence of 2005, increasing awareness of poverty, lack of resources and on-going racism has led to calls for a more holistic approach to youth programming. Youth empowerment has become the focus of new program and policy developments, but these continue to function within a context of widespread safety concerns fostering a contradictory deficiency approach that blames individuals for their shortcomings. My research has confirmed that despite this challenging context, empowering youth work is nevertheless happening in a multiplicity of contexts. Essential and interdependent elements of this practice include engaging with language and media, the importance of reflection, enabling youth voices, and creating respectful spaces. The practice discussed in this thesis demonstrates how critical youth practitioners incorporate all of these elements in varying ways, through creating integral processes involving both reflection and action and simultaneously affirming the individual while raising awareness of the social.
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 | 0.058 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.075 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.030 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".