Some Conceptual Considerations of Risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the “at risk ” label has proliferated in the literature in recent years, its precise definition remains obscure. According to various statistics, approximately 20%, or 1 in 5 of the children and youth in Canada are at risk for developing problems that jeopardize their present and future adjustment. This article explores the origins of the risk concept and examines the current state of knowledge regarding the conceptualization of risk in children and youth. Current theory and research indicate that risk factors are multidimensional, interactive, and multiplicative, and should be viewed as steps along a continuum. Moreover, the nature and timing of risk factors affect outcomes, and risk propensity is heightened during periods of transition. Research on the role of the school context in facilitating or reducing risk and its implications for intervention and policy is identified as an important foci for the future. Obtaining children and youth’s voices in risk research also much needed. The paper concludes that future research and policy should shift its focus from a risk to a resiliency framework. Children and Youth at Risk:
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 | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".