Negotiating Alternative Public Spaces: The Spatial Encounters of Young People in the West Island of Montreal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis engages in an initial exploration of the spatial experiences of older youth in the suburbs of the West Island of Montreal. Adopting a Lefebvrian spatial lens, the goal of this thesis is to outline the characteristics of the lived experiences of older middle class youth in a constructed suburban environment. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in a largely Anglophone college with students aged 18 to 19 years of age. I begin my thesis by reviewing the literature on urban youth geographies, aimed at analyzing the influence of the built urban environment. I argue that the suburban experiences of older youth varies from those of children, inner city youth, and marginalized youth who are most represented in the literature. Then, I present the important considerations of doing research with youth participants and the ways in which my conceived methods were altered during my fieldwork, leading to adjustments in sampling, and subsequent impacts on the conclusions of this thesis. I continue by presenting the themes that emerged during the interviews, which I illustrate by sharing the reflections and everyday experiences of participants. From these accounts, I draw links between the similarities and differences among participants, the literature, and Lefebvre's theories. In this analysis, I reflect upon the differences between available youth literatures and the young people from my sample, leading me to further explore broader literatures that enable me to contextualize more characteristics of my sample and concepts related to the lack of illegitimate spaces in the suburbs, the significance of private space in the suburban environment, play, resistance, and the use of alternative spaces, in a way that differs from the accounts from marginalized urban youth literatures. I argue that the young people from my sample feel less marginalized, therefore engaging in less obvious forms of resistance, while still finding ways to shape their identities and play while being limited by some of the conditions of the built suburban environment.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".