Youth Risky and Antisocial Behaviors in Newfoundland and Labrador: The Perspectives of Young People
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What do young people know about youth risky and antisocial behaviors (RASB) and what do they suggest could be done to address these behaviors? Although there is much literature on youth RASB, there has been little qualitative exploration of the question stated here. The current study aimed to broach the question and to fill the gap. The study contributes to extant literature by exploring types of RASB among youth, reasons for these behaviors, and possible ways to address them from the perspectives of young people in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL). Constructivist and interpretive perspectives where reality is determined through the social processes of subjectivity and intersubjectivity informed the study. Eighteen young people aged 15 to 24 years participated in three focus group discussions (FGD), and data were analyzed thematically. The three main themes resulting from the process were: (1) a spectrum of behaviors, which comprised six types of behaviors; (2) constructed explanations, where participants identified five possible reasons for RASB; and (3) suggested interventions, which comprised three subthemes on interventions to address youth RASB. The findings and their implications for further research and for policy and practice are discussed.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".