The Rising (Street) Generation: The Vancouver Runaway Revolution and 1970s’ Child Saving
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article delves into the birth, evolution, and significance of runaways as a publicly defined social problem, and its relationship to the transformation of youth work in 1960s and 70s Vancouver. Using media reports and municipal records, we illuminate how running away and transient youth culture helped produce a new era of social reform around “saving” young people. Like their child saving antecedents that emphasized the protection of minors, reform organizations and personnel constructed a new public child—this time a teenager—and advocated for children’s rights. New reform gestures like the runaway house called Cool Aid and the detached youth workers agency called the Gastown Team exemplify the youth advocacy orientation of this modern child rescue moment. By the late 1970s, however, the era of advocacy and its programs seemed to have failed at resolving the problem as more and more young people ended up on the streets. Like its 19th century child saving antecedent, this era of youth advocacy ultimately upheld youth dependency, deferred to coercion, and insisted on policing teens over expanding on their rights.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".