Labour Socialization of Young People in Today’s Russia: The Specificity of Sociological Discourse
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
The paper considers the problem of labour socialization in the light of theoretical approaches, ideas and concepts existing in scientific literature. This problem is one of the most topical in modern Russian sociology of youth. The socialization of modern Russian society deals with various risks and hazards which form a crisis background for the labour socialization of Russian youth. While being studied this background causes different viewpoints to the development of professional values of young people, the specificity of their self-determination and behaviour in work sphere. The authors suppose that, at the level of sociological reflection, it is essential to develop alternative methodological strategies to study youth labour socialization, the state of main labour education agents of Russian young generation and the reconstitution strategy for the efficient system of labour socialization. This system should become a basis for moral and spiritual development of young people and labour potential of the country. The theory of creativity is an important methodological base for the study of labour socialization of young people in the author’s concept. This theory determines the essence of a perfect labour socialization model for youth. If implemented, it can promote not only the efficient labour socialization of Russian young generations but also the swift modernization of Russian society.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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