MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153106934 · doi:10.1080/10398560701701148

Constructions and Deconstructions of Risk, Resilience and Wellbeing: A Model for Understanding the Development of Aboriginal Adolescents

2007· article· en· W2153106934 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jacob A. Burack, Aron Blidner, Heidi Flores, Tamara A. Fitch

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralasian Psychiatry · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicResilience and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityHôpital Rivière-des-Prairies
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetence (human resources)Psychological resiliencePsychologyPositive Youth DevelopmentDevelopmental psychologyConceptual frameworkSocial psychologySociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A developmental framework for understanding issues of risk, resilience, and wellness among Aboriginal adolescents in Canada and elsewhere is presented. As these constructs are not monolithic, simplistic linear risk models of a specific predictor to a specific outcome are inadequate to conceptually capture the complexities of real-life patterns. Accordingly, the conceptual focus is on ideal constructions of competence within the context of continually ongoing transactions in which the adolescents effect and are effected by the various layers and components of the environment. However, the pragmatics of empirical research necessitate simpler approaches in which outcomes are predicted from specific factors. Nonetheless, in keeping with the notion of the complexity of all individuals, competence and wellness are viewed within the framework of the 'whole child' across domains of academic success, behavioural competence and appropriateness, social adaptation, and emotional health within the context of the specific community. Although Aboriginal communities within Quebec, across Canada, the United States and elsewhere, differ considerably with regard to history, culture, language, and priorities for its youth, this approach allows for the universal application of a framework, for which specifics can be modified in relation to the unique and changing aspects of societies, communities, and the individuals within.

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)0.003
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score0.339

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.032
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations51
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralasian PsychiatrySame topicResilience and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207