MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097170758 · doi:10.1080/01650250050118268

Trends in adolescent research for the new millennium

2000· article· en· W2097170758 on OpenAlexaff
Nancy L. Galambos, Bonnie J. Leadbeater

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Behavioral Development · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Development and Social Support
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPsychosocialDevelopmental psychologyPsychological resilienceNeurocognitiveContext (archaeology)Positive Youth DevelopmentCognitionSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article highlights several promising trends in research on adolescence and discusses the likely future course of several recent developments in adolescent research. Current trends include a focus on the transition to young adulthood, the increasing examination of the context and co-occurrence of adolescent problems, and emphasis on the resilience of adolescents in high-risk circumstances. There is a strong need for more research on the cognitive and neurocognitive gains and changes of adolescence and on positive psychosocial behaviours and outcomes for youth. We are just beginning to understand within-group differences in adolescent development, including the life experiences of minority youth, adolescents with disabilities, and homosexual adolescents. The impact of social context and social change on adolescents is also receiving more attention. Methodological approaches likely to be seen more in the future include the use of pattern-centred analyses to complement traditional variable-centred approaches and a greater appreciation for qualitative data analysis as a route to gaining insights into adolescent development. Finally, university-community partnerships are promoted as a way to solve the problems of youth and improve the probability of their healthy futures.

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)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0100.013
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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 head0.212
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations75
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Behavioral DevelopmentSame topicYouth Development and Social SupportFrench-language works237,207