MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983054237 · doi:10.1108/17473610510701142

The stay at home generation

2005· article· en· W1983054237 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julian Rolfe

Bibliographic record

VenueYoung Consumers Insight and Ideas for Responsible Marketers · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Education and Societal Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLas vegasPsychologyGeographyMetropolitan area

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reports on the recent study “The Stay at Home Generation” from Vegas, the youth market research division of Synovate; it is based on in‐depth interviews with young adults in the UK, the USA and Canada. Outlines results from the Survey of English Housing which show that no fewer than 58 per cent of Englishmen aged 20‐24 live at home with their parents, as do 42 per cent of Englishwomen the same age, while 6.8 million people aged over 18 live at home and include working‐class youth, students and ex‐students alike. Discounts the explanation for this that young people cannot afford their own homes. Points out instead that the average number of children per female has fallen to 1.5, and that the divorce rate has increased: these changes, which are producing “beanpole” families in place of the traditional family tree, encourage parents to devote far more attention to their children and to create home environments that are hard to leave. Concludes that, as a result, today’s young people are much less mature and independent than the previous generation, and less rebellious also; parents now aspire to be their children’s best friends and opinion formers, and are likely to be involved in their children’s purchases.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueYoung Consumers Insight and Ideas for Responsible MarketersSame topicYouth Education and Societal DynamicsFrench-language works237,207