MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Poised for Emerging Adulthood in Latin America: A Pleasure for the Privileged

2007· article· en· W2098158436 on OpenAlexaff
Nancy L. Galambos, M. Loreto Martínez

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Development Perspectives · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Education and Societal Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLatin AmericansPovertyPsychologySocioeconomic statusPleasureDevelopmental psychologyIndependence (probability theory)Economic growthPolitical scienceSociologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The purpose of this article is to examine evidence regarding whether the period of the life course referred to as “emerging adulthood” exists, or is likely to develop, in Latin America. Central to this examination is recognition of differences in cultural practices and expectations related to adulthood across countries and differences in gender and socioeconomic factors (power, access to education, and degree of economic independence) within countries. Data from diverse sources suggest that some individuals in Latin America experience a period of emerging adulthood in which they are free to pursue different lifestyle options and delay marriage and parenthood. However, the data also suggest that these individuals are largely from wealthier families, urban areas, and more developed countries. For the many Latin American youth confronted with poverty, child marriage, and inadequate educational and occupational opportunities, emerging adulthood will probably unfold quite differently, if at all, even as they are increasingly exposed to new expectations about role exploration and self-development in their transition to adulthood.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations73
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild Development PerspectivesSame topicYouth Education and Societal DynamicsFrench-language works237,207