UNPACKING YOUNG PEOPLE’S NARRATIVES ABOUT THEIR ASPIRATIONS: A BOURDIEUSIAN PERSPECTIVE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing from Bourdieu’s theories on habitus, capital, and field, this article explores the complex relationship between social context and youth’s aspirations and perceptions of the future. Based on findings from interviews we conducted with young people in two distinct communities in British Columbia, Canada, we undertook a comparative analysis of the ways in which class and place influence young people’s “imagined futures”. Our findings suggest that family plays an instrumental role in shaping youth’s aspirations in both locations. Perceptions regarding opportunity and mobility varied greatly between the communities, and appeared to be influenced by racialized and gendered inequalities. A few youth had aspirations that resided outside of the narrative parameters mapped out by their peers. We explore the implications of these perspectives for community-level strategies aiming to improve young people’s future trajectories, which could have positive impacts on their current and future health and wellbeing. While Bourdieu’s theories do not explicitly consider adolescent-specific capital, we found them to be helpful in making sense of youth’s narratives about their futures.
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 | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".