Sociological Research and Urban Children and Youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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? Sociological Research and Urban Children and Youth 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. Recognizing the potential research with and about young people can have in decision making on multiple levels of policy and service provision, Sociological Research and Urban Children and Youth provides a key foundation for considering the influence of urban environments on young people, and vice versa.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".