Disparity of Ego-Identity Components in Relation to Psychological Security of Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study aimed at investigating the Ego-identity components and the disparity of these components in relation to the psychological security of adolescents in Egypt. The sample of the study consisted of (400) male and female adolescents. The researchers used two main instruments; the psychological security scale and the Ego-identity scale. Findings of the study revealed that there is a positive relationship between Ego-identity achievement and psychological security. It was also revealed that there is a negative relationship between Ego-identity look and Ego-identity dispersion on the one hand and psychological security on the other. Results also showed that there are statistically significant differences in the mean scores between adolescents with high and low Ego-identity in their psychological security in favor of adolescents with high Ego-identity. In addition, it was shown that there are statistically significant differences between low and high Ego-identity dispersion in psychological security in favor of low Ego-identity dispersion. Finally, it was revealed that there are statistically significant differences between adolescents with high and low Ego-identity in their overall score of Ego-identity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".