"At Risk" of Being Rural? The Experience of Rural Youth in a Risk Society
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper uses data from a researcher-designed longitudinal survey of youth to examine factors associated with whether rural youth return to or stay in their home communities or a similar rural community. It discusses the effects of this decision to be a young adult in a rural community. A qualitative analysis expands the more quantitative one in order to document how rural youth articulate what it means to be rural in relation to educational and/or career choices. Drawing on risk-society discourse and study, the paper argues that what remains largely hidden to date is that the features of the risk society, including greater uncertainty, fragmentation of and increasingly individualized life-course transition processes, have mostly ignored the fact that rural youth remain at greater comparative risk than their urban counterparts. Our analysis suggests that, despite feeling satisfied with their personal and family life and despite seeing home and family as important, many rural youth now frame their rurality and their choice to live in their home communities as failures, either in relation to education and/or to occupation and career. In the absence of systemic solutions to mitigate and address the risks of staying home for rural youth, many individuals, we find, embody socioeconomic problems as an inability to “get very far.” They often see themselves as having few options. Our findings suggest that more attention is needed on what it is about our ideas of modernity and urban mobility, evidenced in notions of the risk society, which leads so many rural youth to leave their home communities, or to be dissatisfied with their opportunities if they opt to stay. Key words: rural youth, risk, life-course transitions, education, mobility
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.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it