Peculiarities of Demonstrative Behavior Manifestations of Teenagers Brought up in Orphanages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Theoretical justification and experimental validation of forms and methods applied for psychological-pedagogical correction of demonstrative behavior of teenagers brought up in orphanages have become the research objective. 127 pupils of orphanages of the Republic of Tatarstan participated in the experiment To collect the information there were applied two variations of the test for ostentation, methods of mathematical statistics, Student’s t-criteria to check hypotheses of mean average precision. The results revealed during the stating experiment showed that teenagers brought up in orphanages have a high level of demonstrative behavior. The majority of respondents are fond of attention; they are emotionally mobile, artistic and inclined to self-deception. The level of demonstrative behaviour lowered considerably after the program “Demonstrative behaviout: is it good or bad” aimed at the psychological-pedagogical correction of demonstrative behaviour of teenagers brought up in orphanages was applied at the forming stage of the experiment. Thereafter their demonstrative behaviour started to be of more positive character. There is observed a tendency to the average and low level of demonstrative behaviour of teenagers brought up in orphanages.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".