MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2264947726 · doi:10.14288/1.0054073

The construction of identity in early adulthood

2009· article· en· W2264947726 on OpenAlexaff
Michael S. Gooblar

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarly Childhood Education and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentity (music)PsychologyArtAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Researchers and theoreticians consider identity to be a particularly salient feature in the lives of young adults. A large body of literature on identity in young adults addresses issues from a positivist perspective and does not consider the role of individual volition. The constructivist orientation of the present study takes the view that individuals are active in their construction of identity through making meaning of their experience. The purpose of this study was to examine the processes through which identity is constructed by young adults. Because young adults live in society, the cultural construction of identity was also accessed. Six volunteers between the ages of 19 and 21 participated in two individual interviews. In the first interview, the participants were asked to describe the person he or she is at present and to tell the story of how he or she came to be that person. They were requested to bring personally significant photographs to this interview in order to aid in the telling of the story. In the follow-up interview, participants critically reviewed a summary of the first interview prepared by the researcher. Both interviews were audio recorded. The narratives were transcribed and then analyzed using a phenomenological method (Giorgi, 1975). Individual elements of each story, called meaning units (Giorgi, 1975), were identified and reduced to one or two words that described the core meaning. Common core meanings were grouped together and edited resulting in seven themes which described the young adults' experience: The experience of self awareness, the experiences of closeness and separateness, the experience of place, the experience of tension between opposing forces, the experiences of change and continuity, the experiences of receiving and passing on knowledge and experience and, the experience of considering the future. The narratives were then reread in light of the identified themes. One question was asked of each meaning unit: "What role does this experience hold in the context of the identified theme and in the young adult's construction of identity?" This study shows that by taking a constructivist approach, the researcher was able to address issues of identity in young adults as they are experienced by the individual. Additionally, the experiences of young adults can be employed to ascertain the individual and cultural constructions of identity. The findings illustrate constructions of identity by young adults and the processes through which young adults construct identity. Support is given to constructs suggested by ego psychology, developmental, family systems, and cognitive models of identity. Questions are raised regarding gender differences in young adults' future projections. The study illustrates the need for practitioners to attend to the meanings that young adults make of their experience rather than approaching young adults with counselling agendas and preconceived notions based on theories that may not accurately reflect the young adults' experience. While research theories and therapeutic orientations can assist the practitioner, they should emerge in response to the communicated experience of the client rather than attempt to predict them.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.013
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0000.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Same topicEarly Childhood Education and Development→French-language works237,207→