Put at and kept from risk: The sexual risk dilemmas confronting marginalized youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The current study examines Bay-Cheng and Ginn's (2024) claim that marginalized youth confront two intertwined sexual risk dilemmas: being put at risk by unjust social forces and structures that threaten their sexual health and safety; and being kept from risk by those same forces and structures, thus compromising their development and dignity. METHODS: We explored the presence and relevance of these dilemmas using interviews conducted in 2022 with 101 racialized and/or queer (i.e., a sexuality other than exclusively heterosexual) young women and trans or nonbinary youth aged 16-21 and living in Melbourne (Australia), New York City (United States), and Toronto (Canada). We conducted a directed content analysis of the data and examined intersectional group-based comparisons of code frequencies. RESULTS: We found that 80% of participants felt endangered (i.e., put at risk) and/or obstructed (i.e., kept from risk) by social and material conditions. Over half felt put at risk through exposure to hostility and harm, and over one-third of participants described precarious life circumstances as keeping them from taking wanted sexual risks. Group-based and intersectional comparisons indicated that feeling put at risk is associated with marginalized gender and sexuality identities and corresponding discrimination. We also found tentative signs that feeling kept from risk may be more closely linked to race and racism than marginalization by gender and/or sexuality. CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlight the diverse implications of interlocked social injustices for youths' sexual lives, particularly the infringement on their rights both to safety and to risk.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".