Young People’s Perspectives on Safety and Safety Promotion in St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Safety is an essential public good, more so in urban locales, and it has become imperative to understand safety in the city from the perspectives of diverse city dwellers. This paper explores young people’s perspectives on safety and its promotion in the city, using a group of young people in St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador (NL). The study answers the question, what are young people’s perspectives on safety and safety promotion in the city? A conceptual framework on safety promotion and discourse analysis methodology informed the design and conduct of the study. Following purposive sampling, 23 young people aged 15 to 24 years participated in face-to-face interviews and data were analyzed deductively and inductively to identify themes. Three themes emerged which constitute participants’ safety discourse as follows: 1. Safety as essential for health and wellness—portraying safety as mental, physical, and social health; 2. Safety as threatened by behavioral and environmental factors; and 3. Safety promotion as personal and public responsibility—where individuals must act responsibly and leaders must invest in public safety measures. Consistent with the character of discourse, participants constructed safety as fundamental to human health, frowned upon behaviors and practices that threaten safety, and allocated responsibility for safety promotion. Male and female participants alike shared the view that safety is essential for health and wellbeing, and that promoting safety should be the collective responsibility of individuals and public leaders. On threats to safety, although female and male voices were represented, male participants were predominant in identifying factors related to traffic violations, criminal activity, and other forms of public nuisance. Findings of this study have implications for the empirical literature and for practice. The findings indicate that young people have a nuanced understanding of safety and are able to provide relevant suggestions on how to promote safety in the city. Their safety discourse identifies important threats to safety which, if addressed, will promote individual and collective feelings of safety. Consistent with what is known of discourses, the safety discourse aims to sanitize the community environment, to monitor and discipline individual behavior, and to shape institutional policies and practices.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».