YOUTH AS TRUTH-TELLERS AND RIGHTS-HOLDERS: LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL REFORMS TO ENABLE YOUTH HOUSING SECURITY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the first pan-Canadian study on youth homelessness, 57.8% of youth reported prior involvement with child protection services. Indeed, transitions from government institutions (e.g., child/youth protection, inpatient mental health treatment, the youth justice system) represent common pathways into homelessness for youth across North America. This article examines young people’s experiences navigating youth protection services to identify institutional, legislative, and policy processes that pose problems for youth experiencing or at risk of homelessness, as well as processes that show promise for the promotion of the interests, protection, and well-being of youth. Our participatory youth research team explored homeless youth’s histories of involvement with youth protection services, seeking to clarify the sociolegal mechanisms in and beyond the youth protection system that make young people vulnerable to homelessness. Youth and adult co-researchers interviewed 38 individual youth (aged 16–29) who completed 64 qualitative institutional history interviews. According to our analysis, young people identified the following sociolegal practices as implicated in their experiences of homelessness: the use of totalizing institutions, the criminalization of runaways, the abrupt cessation of service delivery at 18 years of age, a systemic failure to view youth as rights-holders, and an overly complex emancipation process.
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 | 0.017 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".