MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ego Development, Ego Strengths, and Ethnic Identity Among First Nation Adolescents

2011· article· en· W2147440326 on OpenAlexaff
Barbara M. Gfellner, Helen D. Armstrong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Research on Adolescence · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Development and Social Support
Canadian institutionsBrandon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyEthnic groupId, ego and super-egoLoevinger's stages of ego developmentPsychosocialErikson's stages of psychosocial developmentPersonal identityIdentity (music)Developmental psychologySocial psychologySelf-conceptIndigenousMainstreamSociologyAnthropologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three conceptualizations of psychosocial development were investigated among Canadian First Nation adolescents. Loevinger's social cognitive model of ego development reflects the way in which an individual views the self and social reality. From Eriksonian theory, ego strengths refer to the emergent values or outcomes that represent resolution of the eight psychosocial stages of development, and ethnic identity is a domain of personal identity with special relevance for minorities. As expected, age and biological gender differences were found for ego development. Associations between ego development and ego strengths were supported as were age differences in ethnic identity status. Traditional students (strongly identified with indigenous culture) demonstrated greater ego strengths than bicultural (identified with both their own and mainstream cultures) adolescents.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.232
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations27
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Research on AdolescenceSame topicYouth Development and Social SupportFrench-language works237,207