At risk of what? Possibilities over probabilities in the study of young lives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper draws on a series of 45 interviews with recipients of social assistance between the ages of 16 and 24 to offer a critical assessment of the language of ‘risk’ and ‘resilience.’ After briefly tracing the development of this vocabulary and approach in youth research, this paper argues in line with existing critiques (Kelly 2000, te Riele 2006, France 2007) that neither risk nor resilience is an appropriate way of coming to understand young people's past, present, or future lives. Moreover, the authors argue that the language of risk and resilience commits a form of ‘symbolic violence’ (Bourdieu 1999, Frank 2002, Zizek 2008) against young people whose lives are presumably captured and finalized by this conceptual language. Instead, the authors propose that, when dealing with young people and the future, a focus on narrative and the ‘desirable futures’ interviewees envision for themselves is a more humane, and in many respects a more fruitful way of approaching the study of young lives.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".