Citizenship Practices Among Youth Who Have Experienced Government Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Expressions of youth citizenship are evident in young people’s actions, behaviours, and lived experiences. While youth citizenship literature has proliferated in the last two decades, the focus has often been on rights and responsibilities, rather than the differences in citizenship practices amongst youth themselves. Using a qualitative research design, our study explores how youth-with-care-experience practice citizenship. We conducted twenty semi-structured interviews with youth-with-care-experience between the ages of 14-24 in Greater Victoria, Canada. Analysis of participants’ narratives reveals three types of citizenship practices: self-responsible, dissenting and reluctant citizenship. We discuss our findings in the context of the literature on youth citizenship, focusing on the ways that it is contextualized by experiences with family, peers, institutions, and the government care system. Résumé. Les expressions de la citoyenneté des jeunes sont évidentes dans leurs actions, comportements et leurs expériences vécues. Alors que la littérature reliée à la citoyenneté des jeunes a proliféré dans les deux dernières décennies, l’emphase a souvent été mise sur les droits et les responsabilités, plutôt que sur les différences dans les pratiques de la citoyenneté chez les jeunes. En utilisant un modèle de recherche qualitatif, notre étude explore comment la citoyenneté est vécue par les jeunes qui ont été pris en charge. Nous avons effectué vingt entretiens semi-structurés avec des jeunes qui ont été pris en charge âgés entre 14 et 24 ans dans la région de Victoria, Canada. L’analyse des données révèle trois types de pratiques de la citoyenneté: auto-responsable, dissidente et réticente. Nous discutons de nos résultats dans le contexte de la littérature sur la citoyenneté des jeunes, en mettant l’accent sur les façons dont la citoyenneté des jeunes est contextualisée par des expériences avec la famille, les pairs, les institutions et le système de santé.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".