MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4244486621 · doi:10.1057/978-1-137-55425-3_45

Youth

2016· book-chapter· en· W4244486621 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa W. Loutzenheiser, Sam Stiegler

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave Macmillan US eBooks · 2016
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQueerGender studiesHuman sexualitySociologyTransgenderRace (biology)The ImaginaryQueer theoryPoliticsCategorizationPsychologyPolitical sciencePsychoanalysisEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the body is not quite young enough to be “child” and not yet old enough to be “adult,” the social, political, cultural, discursive, material ideas and imaginings that constitute “youth” lie directly at the intersection of the scholarly concerns of queer studies and education. What is the imaginary of youth? Simultaneously, how are material realities of those called youth, particularly in relation to genders, sexualities and race, bound together with the imaginaries constructed about them? Drawing from a research project at a camp for queer and transgender youth and a course in sexuality studies in education, it is particularly productive to think about how knowledges are inhabited, raced and produced by imaginaries such as “good” youth, “good” adult, risk, and safety. How do questions such as “What will the youth grow (up?) to be?”; “What does success, failure, and learning look like?”; “Who stands up for whom?” reveal how “youth” as a category is employed in relation to gender, sex, race, ability and sexuality? Finally, this chapter explores how thinking about “youth,” and queer youth in particular, as both framed by categories and exceeding categorization offers rich space for queer studies and queer research in education.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.246
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.014

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.264 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalgrave Macmillan US eBooksSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207