Tolerance Rules: Identity, Resistance, and Negotiation in an Inner City Recreation/Drop-In Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For many youth, the recreation/drop-in center is a nonthreatening, relatively unstructured place to play sports and hang out in an otherwise high-risk urban area. Although numerous studies have shown a positive relationship between these recreation programs and risk reduction for youth, little work has addressed the creative ways that youth negotiate these surroundings. Drawing on cultural studies and interactionist approaches to youth that focus on the many levels of everyday experience and relations, this article reports findings from an ethnographic study of a center in a low-income area in urban southern Ontario. The research shows how youth in this drop-in center context maintained an informal culture of nonviolence by creating a set of “tolerance” rules that allowed diverse groups to coexist in a limited social space. Issues surrounding resistance were also evident in this study. On one hand, youth living in a marginalized area were resistant to the dominant negative influences that exist outside the center. On the other hand, by creating their own informal culture within the center, the youth took power in an organization otherwise dominated (administratively) by adults. These findings inform theory surrounding the lived experiences of youth while addressing issues of resistance that are central to mainstream work on youth culture.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".