Quebec's Adult Educational Settings: Potential Turning Points for Emerging Adults? Identifying Barriers to Evidence-Based Interventions.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using the new “emerging adulthood ” developmental period (Arnett, 2000) as a theoretical framework, this article emphasizes the challenges faced by emerging adults (17- to 24- year-olds) enrolled in adult education. First, emerging adulthood as a developmental period and the additional difficulties experienced by youths with emotional, behavioral and school disabilities during this period are briefly discussed. Then, a description of adult education within the Quebec’s school system and its potential role as a turning point is presented. Finally, barriers to improvement are identified and the need for better knowledge about this clientele to establish evidence-based interventions is asserted. Quebec’s adult educational settings: Potential turning points for emerging adults? 2 1.0. THE EMERGING ADULTHOOD PERIOD Recently, Arnett (1998; 2000; 2005; 2007) coined the term “emerging adulthood ” to define the period encompassing the years from the end of high school through the mid-twenties. Maintaining that this period is distinct from adolescence and adulthood, many authors have argued that emerging adulthood is a period of identity exploration and self-focus, as well as of
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".