Sticks and stones: racism as experienced by adolescents in New Brunswick.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to describe both the nature of racism as experienced by adolescent self-described victims in the province of New Brunswick and their response to the perceived racist incidents. A qualitative methodology based on the constructivist paradigm was used. In-depth interviews were conducted with non-White adolescent victims of racism and with parents of victims. Although the study was initiated in response to an eruption of publicity about teenage racial violence, the findings indicate that racist incidents were not a new phenomenon for the participants. They described a low-key but long-term problem that had begun when they entered the public school system. Name-calling was by far the most common form of racism identified and it played a part in most of the other incidents described; dismissed as harmless by authority figures, it appeared to have long-term consequences for its targets. The participants' response to racism was found to have three phases: splintered universe, spiralling resistance, and disengagement. The results suggest that nurses working in the field of school health should address issues of racism among children and adolescents.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".