Research on Adolescent Development in the Philippines: A Review and Evaluation of the Past Two Decades
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolescents comprise 30% of the Philippine population, and are directly implicated in the country’s development prospects. However, adolescence, as a developmental period, has been treated unsystematically and virtually neglected in Philippine psychology research (Ventura, 1981). While this situation has changed in recent years, the extent to which research on Filipino adolescents has grown remains undetermined. This review addresses the gap by providing a comprehensive evaluation of the status of research on Filipino adolescent development from 1983 to the present. A total of 147 scholarly published and unpublished papers were examined in terms of their themes, bibliographic features (i.e., year published/completed; source of report), sampling characteristics (i.e., participants’ age, gender, SES, study setting, sampling size and method), and methodological elements including research objectives, design and procedures. The results indicate that adolescence research has indeed grown exponentially since the early 80’s, mostly concentrating on socio-emotional aspects and problems of the youth. In this body of research, school-going middle to late adolescents from urban areas appeared to be overly-sampled in large groups through convenience sampling. Lastly, fully a quarter of studies were found to be only incidentally about adolescent development. Recommendations therefore focused on the utility of the developmental perspective in analyzing and interpreting data from youth research, the need for clearer definitions of Filipino adolescence, and the call for wider dissemination of scholarly works on the lives of the Filipino youth.
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 | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".