Canada'S Teens: Today, Yesterday and Tomorrow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada's teens treasure highly their freedom, friendships and music.Although the majority of Canadian youth profess faith in God, fewer and fewer youth in Canada are actively involved with organized religion."This is a view expressed recently in a public forum by a Lutheran youth pastor.It is strongly supported by research with Canadian youth that Reginald W. Bibby, who holds the Board of Governors Research Chair of the Sociology Department at the University of Lethbridge, has undertaken systematically and consistently since 1984."Canada's Teens," notes Bibby, "releases extensive new data on Canadian young people and adults produced through two new national surveys carried out in 2000.But it also draws on our previous youth surveys in 1984 and 1992, and our adult surveys carried out every five years dating back to 1975-a total of seven other surveys in total."(vii) "To get a comprehensive reading of teens today, I engaged in lengthy conversations with some 3,500 young people, aged 15 to 19, in the late spring and early fall of 2000."(6)At the outset, Bibby refutes two views regarding youth that are often held to be true: I) "What teens are like today is what they will be like as adults tomorrow"; and 2) "Today's teens will control tomorrow's world."Bibby calls these "false assumptions".And so they are.We need to recognize that we live in "an intergenerational world", one in which youth need to be respected and honoured for who they are.( 5)This text, which is descriptive of Canadian youth now and before 2000, is divided into three distinct yet interrelated sections.Part I deals with "Teens Today"; Part 2 focuses on "Teens Yesterday''; Part 3 reflects on "Teens Tomorrow".While each of these divisions provides valuable insights into youth at different generational standpoints and at different stages of life, there is also a lot of correlation and comparison between the data from each of the sections.The charts are presented in an easy-to-read manner.The narrative descriptions and reflections, provided by the author, give the reader ready access to narratives from the interviewees and to pertinent extrapolations and interpretations from the author of the study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.107 | 0.014 |
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".