MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400273860 · doi:10.32920/26169313.v1

Sociological Research and Urban Children and Youth

2024· preprint· en· W4400273860 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rachel Berman, Patrizia Albanese, Xiaobei Cheng

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Education and Societal Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociological researchSociologySociological theorySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Almost a third of the 4 billion people living in urban areas today are children, according to the United Nations. By 2050, 70 percent of the world’s children will live in cities. Yet how has recent sociological work engaged with children and youth living in cities around the world? What does a focus on children and youth in an urban context mean for researchers working within a variety of sociological frameworks? How have children’s and youth’s experiences shaped and been shaped by the diverse urban scapes and contexts in which they live?</p> <p><em>Sociological Research and Urban Children and Youth</em> brings together cutting-edge work that addresses children’s and youth’s urban living experiences as well as the social, political, and ecological realities that accompany this. Featuring contributions from Australia, Canada, the U.K., and the United States, the chapters critically engage with core analytical and conceptual issues ranging from relationality to citizenship and belonging, to power, structure, and agency.</p> <p>Recognizing the potential research with and about young people can have in decision making on multiple levels of policy and service provision, <em>Sociological Research and Urban Children and Youth</em> provides a key foundation for considering the influence of urban environments on young people, and vice versa.</p>

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.541

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.157
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicYouth Education and Societal DynamicsFrench-language works237,207