Dinámicas relacionales de las transiciones a la vida adulta. Complementariedad entre redes, apoyos y soportes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
¿Qué recursos pueden atraer hacia los jóvenes personas que compongan su red (estructura, composición, etc.)? ¿Qué apoyos reciben los jóvenes de manera efectiva por parte de su entorno (red primaria y secundaria)? ¿Cuáles son las condiciones necesarias para que un apoyo se convierta en un soporte real en las transiciones hacia la vida adulta? Hemos decidido utilizar varios marcos de análisis complementarios al análisis de las redes sociales, para enfocarnos de manera compleja en las transiciones a la vida adulta. Así como extraemos del análisis que los jóvenes deben estar rodeados de un entorno, también es necesario que éste sea de calidad. Por otro lado, además del apoyo como tal, es necesario que el joven lo acepte para que le pueda favorecer en las transiciones. Abstract: What are the resources that can emerge from the actors evolving within the youth’s social networks? What are the characteristics of the supports actually directed towards the youth? In which conditions can a support really help the transition from adolescence to adult hood?We have chosen to use complementary analysis frameworks in order to apprehend youth’s transitions from a more complex point of view. We can conclude from our analysis that if youth need to be surrounded, the good quality of their social network is essential. Clearly, it goes without saying that youth have to show some opening towards their supports in order for them to have a positive effect on their transition process.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".