00a — the latest YuCROWN framing

What YuCROWN is actually trying to help young people practice

The focus is not AI skills. It is helping young people practice:

• Curiosity — noticing what they do not yet know.
• Imagination — moving beyond the limits of their current knowledge.
• Wider / complex thinking — seeing multiple explanations, relationships, scales, perspectives, and consequences.
• Judgment — deciding what to trust, reject, test, or pursue.
• Authorship — turning understanding into something that remains meaningfully theirs.
• Connection — linking their questions and work to other people, places, knowledge, experiences, and narratives.

AI is a light accelerator and connector inside this process. It can help someone understand faster, explore more possibilities, express more clearly, and connect to knowledge and other perspectives. It should not replace curiosity, thinking, judgment, or authorship.

Learning can begin when a young person discovers “something I do not yet understand.” Teachers and mentors help open questions and widen the field. AI can help the learner move faster through understanding and connection, but the learner still chooses what matters.

This connects to what YuCROWN is: Youth United, Connecting Realms of World Narratives. Different places, people, experiences, questions, and works can become visible and connected. So Human-Centered AI Learning & Research should help young people expand their thinking and connect their own perspective to other realms of knowledge and lived experience. It should not standardize everyone into the same AI-generated output.

One consequence for roles: YuCROWN is not teaching people to use EarthLinC, and it is not teaching prompt engineering. EarthLinC is the environment and infrastructure where learning, creation, reflection, connection, and research can happen. It is not the educational goal.

Needs verification Whether these six practices can be observed, and how they develop over time, is a research question for Cali and the team to shape. It is not a finding.

Cali, please push on this list: add, merge, or strike anything, and tell me if the framing is the wrong shape for the research.

00d — reference points

Two references, doing two different jobs

Two reference points sit behind these notes. They are kept separate on purpose: one supplies evidence and questions, the other supplies a real setting to try ideas in.

• Research reference = evidence and questions.
• Taiwan school project = a C// Field project, and one real setting where Study can apply and iterate.
• For Cali — Research Notes = the working bridge between YuCROWN's direction, Cali's original research framing, the research base, and real projects.

Needs verification I have summarized what each reference is for, not checked its contents line by line against Cali's framing. Where they differ, Cali's judgment wins.

00f — shared principles: the eight practices and a working loop

Principles each project-specific plan can start from

A student should not just gain EarthLinC access and make an attractive Station. Study's shared principles point toward eight practices, the learning-facing form of the six practices in §00a. A project-specific plan decides which of them to emphasize and how:

• Learn to notice — what do I see, care about, or not yet understand?
• Learn to ask — how do I form better questions?
• Learn to think — how do I compare explanations, see relationships, and keep thinking beyond the first answer?
• Learn to imagine — what possibilities lie beyond my current knowledge?
• Learn to judge — what do I trust, reject, test, or keep exploring?
• Learn to make — how do I turn understanding into something of my own?
• Learn to reflect — what changed in my thinking, and what did AI contribute or fail to contribute?
• Learn to connect — how does my question or work connect to other people, places, knowledge, experiences, and narratives?

AI is not the subject to master. It is a light accelerator and connector inside this learning process.

C// Conversations can feed the loop, when useful

The process need not end when a Station is published. Where it fits, students can bring questions, discoveries, disagreements, and reflections into C// Conversations, where different perspectives meet and can generate new questions, new work, and new connections. Conversations are a realm of their own (§00b). They are not a mandatory stage in every Study project, and a project can run without them.

A working loop, not a required sequence. The highlighted step is optional: it applies only when a project connects to a Conversation.

1. notice
2. question
3. explore
4. judge
5. make
6. reflect
7. connect
8. conversation (optional)
9. new question

Needs verification Whether this loop describes how learning actually moves, and whether these eight practices are observable, are open questions for Cali to shape. They are not findings.

00g — Study works project by project

Study develops project-specific approaches within a shared framework

Human-Centered AI Learning & Research gives YuCROWN shared principles and a common research direction. It is not one fixed curriculum. Study develops project-specific Human-Centered AI Learning & Research approaches within a shared YuCROWN framework, based on each real context.

The shared framework is what YuCROWN holds steady. The project plan is what changes with context, and it is a draft to iterate, not a script. Fellows, Conversations, and Field projects may feed a plan where relevant (§00b), but none is a required part of it.

Cali, please tell me if this split is the wrong shape, or if something belongs in neither column.

00h — the Taiwan school: a C// Field project and a Study implementation context

A real school partnership first, a Study context second

The Taiwan mountain/rural school proposal (YuCROWN × 嘉義縣豐山實驗教育學校) is a C// Field project: a real school partnership in its own right. It can also become a Study implementation context.

Study can enter it to design a context-specific Human-Centered AI Learning & Research plan, covering the items in §00g: who the students are, the learning goals and journey, the role of teachers and mentors, when AI enters, what evidence is retained, and which research questions fit.

Fellows or mentors may support it, and C// Conversations may connect to it when useful. None of these is a mandatory structural step, and Study does not direct the school project.

It is one context, not the definition of the framework or of Study as a whole. Whatever Cali concludes about priority populations (§00j) may or may not align with it.

Taiwan pilot proposal: earthlinc.earth/station/pm3bccfxh9/把日子織成星空

Needs verification The partnership terms, timeline, and exactly what Study's role in it would be are for the team and the school to confirm. Nothing here assumes them.

00j — the first-stage task

Before finalizing the shared framework: study, then choose who it is for

The first piece of work, before the shared framework is finalized, has two parts:

1. Study the existing Human-Centered AI research (including the 2026 reference in §00d) and the relevant funding directions.
2. Help define the priority learner populations. The population should not be “everyone.” It should be chosen deliberately, based on mission fit, learning need, evidence, and funding fit. Each project plan then names its own participants (§00g).

This is why YuCROWN is selective (§00e). The Taiwan mountain/rural school (§00h) is one real context that may align with whatever Cali concludes, but it should not be forced to define the whole framework.

Funding fit is one criterion for choosing populations. It is not a funding pitch, and it does not set the research design (see §12).

Cali, this is the task YuCROWN most needs from you now. Your conclusion may differ from ours, and that is useful.

07 — participation & consent, underlined twice

being present is not being a research participant

Keeping this explicit, whatever else changes: being present on EarthLinC, taking part in educational activities or a project, or having work in Earth Library does not make someone a research participant. Research participation is separate and opt-in.

Any study would need: informed, legible consent; guardian consent and age-appropriate assent where minors are involved; whatever applicable review or oversight we determine is required, all still to be designed; clear privacy and data boundaries; a real route to withdraw; and explicit boundaries around public sharing and authorship, with authorship staying with the participant.

We do not have an approved ethics protocol. Nothing here should be read as one. Ordinary use stays ordinary use. A Station enters Earth Library only if its creator chooses that through the C// mint / crown pathway, and that pathway neither transfers ownership nor authorizes anyone to study the work.

09 — context retained from v0.4 · brief dated October 1, 2026

The program brief, as drafted in v0.4

Kept here as background, condensed. It describes the educational and practice direction YuCROWN has drafted for Human-Centered AI Learning & Research within Study. It is not a final specification or a fixed curriculum, and it does not settle the research design. Whether and how it shapes the research is for Cali to evaluate.

Starting point

The program begins with people's own interests, lived experiences, and questions, and explores how AI can support learning, creative expression, and connections between people. Participants may move from asking questions, observing and documenting toward organizing discoveries, experimenting with forms of expression, and sharing work. Human judgment, choice, and authorship remain central.

Practice and participation

The program is imagined as ongoing educational practice, mentorship across disciplines, and collaborative research. Teachers and practice partners support exploration in the learning environment. C// Fellows, Conversations, and Field are distinct realms that may support a project where relevant, as described in §00b and §08; none is a required step.

A school in Taiwan may serve as an initial setting, and the program remains open to other communities and contexts. No funding partner is named or assumed.

Initial school practice proposal (a proposal for discussion; a C// Field project that can also become a Study implementation context, see §00h): earthlinc.earth/station/pm3bccfxh9

Areas drafted for Cali to develop

1. Research questions. Independent judgment, creative choices, authorship and collaboration. Select tractable questions rather than studying every dimension.
2. Educational practice. Sustained exploratory activities, and the roles of teachers, Fellows and mentors.
3. Research methods and documentation. Ways to understand experiences and change over time, and what instrumentation exists versus what would need to be built.
4. Participant rights. Research consent, minors and guardian consent, privacy, ownership, withdrawal, and choices about public sharing.
5. Outcomes and feedback. Possible papers, practice cases and shareable findings, and how findings return to practice.

An initial framework for team discussion would cover central questions, implementation approach, support required, and potential outcomes. Nothing about dates, enrollment, budget, completed research or publication is settled, and none should be assumed.

The program direction is a draft for discussion. The research design underneath it is not decided, and it is Cali's to propose, revise, or push back on.

12 — earlier funding thought — kept separate

Not part of the research framing

At one point I wondered whether the Anthropic Wellbeing Research Grants might be relevant to an evaluation research layer. I'm recording it only as an earlier thought, for separate review.

It is not a confirmed opportunity, not an approved grant, and no funder is a program owner or partner. No deadlines or eligibility are claimed. These notes are not a funding pitch, and the research directions above stand or fall on their own terms, independent of any funder.