Understanding Goal-Directed Action in Emerging Adulthood
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes an alternative framework for conceptualizing and researching emerging adulthood based on the notions of goal-directed processes. Specifically, contextual action theory (CAT) is proposed to add value to understanding transition-to-adulthood processes because of its emphasis on description, intentional action, and relational context. A related naturalistic, longitudinal method, the action-project method (A-PM), is used to study joint, goal-directed actions and projects (multiple actions over time). The A-PM qualitatively describes joint projects of emerging adults and those involved with them by relying on three perspectives of action: manifest behavior, internal processes, and social meaning. The method consists of video recording joint action between participants, accessing internal processes of action through a video playback interview, and monitoring joint projects over time. This conceptualization and method have been used to describe the joint goal-directed processes inherent in emerging adulthood including parent–youth relationships, friendship, identity formation, and school–work transitions.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it