Re-presenting youth : a visual exploration of young people's experiences in urban renewal efforts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One INTR.ODUCTIONAmedca is now home to thickening lanks ofjuvenile "super-predators,,radically impulsive, brutally t'emorseless youngsters, inctuaing eveï more pre-teenage boys, who murder, assault, rape, rob, burgrarize, Jear deadry drugs, join gun-toting gangs and create serious communal disorders.They do not fear the stigma of arest, the pains of irnprisonment or the pangs of conscience (John J. Dilulio, Jr., william Bennet, and John p. waiersJ t9e6).Warning.This thesis is about inner-city teens.Does that mean you will be reading stories of drug addiction, ctime, prostitution, gangs, devastation and hopelessness?Admittedly, these are themes touched upon, referred to, and talked about by the young people who agreed to participate in this project.Yet this thesis is not about a ,problem' group of teens, nor does it necessarily focus on the stereotypical problems teens may have' What it does, or at least attempts to do, is to provide a space in which a small group of young people speak their voice and porlray their images of a neighbourhood undergoing urban renewal efforts.You will be introduced to young people who come fi'om diverse backgrounds, the majority being the children of Habitat for Humanity homeowners' Although this circumstance statistically designates them among ,the urban poor' and fi'om wolking class 'families in need', their presentation of their lives and attitudes does not necessarily categorize them as such.Without ignoring the diversity of individual personalities and mitigating conditions and circumstances, such as class, ethnicity, gender and geography, this study is an attempt to arnplifu the narratives of the lives of everyday teens living or vohurteering in william whyte, an ,inner-city, neighbourhood in the North End of Winnipeg, MB., Canada.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".