MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013433164 · doi:10.1080/13676261.2020.1746758

Social media as moral laboratory: street involved youth, death and grief

2020· article· en· W3013433164 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Marion Selfridge, Lisa M. Mitchell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Youth Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGriefSociologySocial psychologySocial mediaPsychologyCriminologyPolitical sciencePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Street involved youth experience both increased rates of mortality and the all too frequent deaths of people they know, rely on, and care about. In this paper, we explore how street-involved youth dealing with the death of peers or family are engaging in what Mattingly calls ‘moral laboratories’, that is, ‘experiments in how life might or should be lived’ (2014, 27). Drawing from interviews with youth in Victoria, Canada, we analyse aspects of their narratives on social media and grief – finding out about the death, what to post, and supporting others. The affordances of social media mean news of a death can spread like wildfire, private lives become public, the deceased’s reputation is scrutinized and judged, as are the words and actions of youth trying to survive. In offline and online spaces, marginalized youth experiment with expressing their grief, rage, and hope, with mourning and memorializing, navigating fractured and complicated relationships, and finding ways to support themselves and others. We argue that thinking about the ‘moral lives’ of street youth can highlight important aspects of their relationships of family, friendships, and community and their strategies for both protecting these key relationships and finding reasons to keep on living.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.319
Threshold uncertainty score0.604

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.232
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Youth StudiesSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207