Longitudinal associations between passions and adjustment in adolescence: Positive mood and unstructured leisure activities as mediators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Passions are activities that people find important, like or enjoy, and on which they spend large amounts of time. Research examining passions in adolescence has been limited, despite a tendency for adolescents to explore their identity by trying new activities (Dworkin et aI., 2003). The purpose of the present study was to examine the association between adolescent passions and positive adjustment (psychological well-being, optimism, purpose in life, and low risktaking), as well as investigate possible underlying mechanisms for the link between passions and adjustment. High school students (N=2270, 48.7% female) from Southern Ontario completed questionnaires in grades 10, 11, and 12. Path analyses were conducted to examine cross-lag paths among all study variables. Passions predicted higher optimism and purpose, as well as lower \nnegative risk-taking, over time, but these adjustment indicators in tum did not predict higher passions over time. Additionally, positive mood and unstructured leisure activities partially mediated these associations. Passions appears to be important for adolescent adjustment, and may serve as a protective factor or help to foster thriving.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".