RISK PERCEPTION AND CONTRACEPTIVE DECISION-MAKING AMONG YOUTH IN DOWNTOWN WINNIPEG
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this thesis, I examine 1) how youth and healthcare providers at Teen Klinic conceptualize risk within contraceptive decision-making, and 2) how perceived risk is communicated between youth and healthcare providers. Specifically, I explore how youth and healthcare providers at a drop-in teen sexual health clinic in downtown Winnipeg perceive and identify risks associated with contraceptive use and how those perceptions influence their choices regarding contraceptive uptake. Foundationally grounded in a critical interpretive theoretical framework, and approaching this work with a feminist ethnographic and reproductive justice lens, this ethnographic research utilized qualitative methodologies such as semi-structured interviews with youth and healthcare providers and participant observation while volunteering at the clinic. In this thesis, I also explore the inherently value-laden nature of risk perception and critically examine and critique the false dichotomy often presented within biomedical research and public health, viewing youth as biased, subjective, and irrational decision-makers and biomedicine as consistently unbiased, objective, and rational. Three broad findings emerged from this research: 1) youth engage in complex iterative decision-making processes, 2) youth follow peer-established pathways in contraceptive uptake, and 3) healthcare providers and youth identify similar risks but assess those risks differently. In understanding the complex and ongoing decision-making processes youth engage in, and the internal logics underpinning these decisions, youth can be more meaningfully understood and engaged as agentive actors in their reproductive health at an individual level. When youth concerns and motivations are understood, they can be better addressed at a population level.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".