MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7162026684 · doi:10.82308/1380

The Edmonton arts and youth feasibility study : a qualitative look at running an arts education program for youth in conflict with the law

2005· dissertation· en· W7162026684 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David. Spinner

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt Education and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe artsQualitative researchProgram evaluationYouth studiesOutcome (game theory)Program Design Language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Edmonton Arts and Youth Feasibility Study was conducted as a result of the question being asked "Can a structured art program be run with youth in conflict with the law?" It was a three month, arts-based, targeted prevention program run in an already existing drop-in centre for delinquent youth. This article reports on the qualitative findings of in-depth interviews conducted with the key stakeholders: participating adolescents (aged 14-19 years), lead artists, research assistants, and site directors. Findings suggest that the art curriculum, the strong relationships built, and the gains made were all strengths of the program. These gains include the acquisition of art skills, social skills and an improved ability to problem solve. Findings from this study also suggest the need for future research, including outcome studies and a program evaluation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.509
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArt Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207