Surveying adolescents: Focusing on positive development
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although risk behaviours can threaten healthy youth development, reducing risks alone is not sufficient to help youth successfully negotiate adolescence. Promoting protective factors that buffer risk, such as family and school connectedness, community engagement and positive peer support, are also important for helping youth to thrive. Since 1992, the Adolescent Health Surveys conducted by McCreary Centre Society (Vancouver, British Columbia) have monitored both risk behaviours and protective factors among high school students across British Columbia. They have shown that, contrary to media images and community perceptions, the majority of young people are not exposed to risk factors such as violence and abuse; most do not have unprotected sex, drink and drive, use illegal drugs or consider suicide. They have also documented key protective factors that are linked to lower rates of risk behaviours and more positive outcomes, even for youth who face unsafe environments, family problems and other stressors. The shift toward assessing and promoting protective factors is a major paradigm change in adolescent health care, and clinicians can be an important partner with families and schools to foster healthy youth development.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it