MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2343700262 · doi:10.1177/0165025415611260

Sowing seeds for future generations

2015· article· en· W2343700262 on OpenAlexaffabout
Fanli Jia, Kendall Soucie, Susan Alisat, Michael W. Pratt

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Behavioral Development · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicIdentity, Memory, and Therapy
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalience (neuroscience)NarrativePsychologyDevelopmental psychologyGenerative grammarIdentity (music)SalientMeaning (existential)Life course approachSocial psychologyCognitive psychologyLinguisticsGeographyAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this longitudinal study, we examined the relationship between the trajectory of generative concern measured at ages 23, 26 and 32 and environmental narrative identity at age 32. Canadian participants completed a questionnaire on generative concern at ages 23, 26 and 32 and were then interviewed about their personal experiences with the environment at age 32 ( N = 112). Narratives were coded by independent raters for meaning, vividness and impact, with higher levels indicating a more salient environmental narrative identity. Latent growth models revealed significant individual variability in the trajectories of generative concern from ages 23 to 32. This variability was associated with the salience of environmental narrative identity at age 32 through two different developmental processes: (1) having a higher level of generative concern at age 23 predicted a more salient environmental narrative identity at age 32; and (2) those who developed higher levels of generative concern during the course of emerging adulthood (from ages 23 to 32) also appeared to display a more salient environmental narrative identity at age 32. Implications of these findings are also discussed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.003

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations32
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Behavioral DevelopmentSame topicIdentity, Memory, and TherapyFrench-language works237,207