Community and political involvement in adolescence: What distinguishes the activists from the uninvolved?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract What distinguishes adolescents who are active in community and political life from those who are not? In an attempt to answer this question, students in their last years of secondary school completed a measure of community and political activities, along with measures of parent and peer interactions, identity development, and adjustment. Cluster analysis of activities reported in the questionnaire identified 4 distinct groupings of adolescents: Activists (who had high levels of involvement in a wide range of political and community activities); Helpers (who were involved in helping individuals from their communities but not in political activities); Responders (who responded to but did not initiate helping or political activities); and Uninvolved adolescents. Comparisons revealed several differences among the groups in terms of parent and peer interactions, identity development, and adjustment, with the Activists and Helpers showing more frequent discussions with parents and peers, more advanced identity development, and better adjustment than the Responders and Uninvolved adolescents. Results are discussed with regard to the role that family and peers may play in fostering adolescents' community and political involvements and the relationship between involvement and the development of adolescent identity. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Comm Psychol 35: 741–759, 2007.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".