Risky groups, risky behaviour, and risky persons: Dominating discourses on youth sexual health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Significant public health attention has been focused on the problems of youth sexual behaviour. Empirical public health research in this area has attempted to account for mostly negative sexual health outcomes (e.g. sexually transmitted infections and teenage pregnancies) by examining individual characteristics and risk-taking behaviour. Public health practice has followed suit, focusing primarily on modifying sexual risk behaviour and lifestyle ‘choices’. In doing so, we may be unwittingly committed to an unarticulated and unrealistic set of assumptions about the level of agency and control that is afforded to many young people. The purpose of this paper is to begin to ‘unpack’ the underpinnings to conventional approaches to public health research and service provision related to youth sexual health in Canada. Drawing on the works of Foucault to show how discourses concerning risky groups, risky behaviour and risky persons have been advanced as sanctioned discourses in Canada (particularly related to HIV/AIDS risk), the authors investigate how themes of safety and goodness have been privileged as healthy, while other, unauthorized forms of youth sexual behaviour have been marginalized. The issue of teen parenthood is examined to demonstrate how these specific discourses have helped to relegate those youth who do not or cannot implant themselves in an ‘approved reality’ to live separately from the norm in a climate of sex-based shame. Drawing on their previous work and that of others, the authors suggest an alternative approach to understanding youth sexual health, one that favours critical, reflexive public health practices and attends to sociological theory.
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 | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".