“Now I know I can make a difference”: Generativity and activity engagement as predictors of meaning making in adolescents and emerging adults.
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 study examined generativity (concern for future generations as a legacy of the self) and activity engagement as predictors of meaning making in young people's personal accounts of their key activity experiences. We elicited stories regarding events within participants' "most engaging activity," self-reports on generativity, and behavioral participation and psychological engagement in activities in 2 separate samples: an emerging adult sample and an adolescent sample. The stories were coded for meaning making, defined as degree of insight into individuals' understanding of themselves or the world (McLean & Pratt, 2006). Psychological engagement, but not behavioral participation, was positively associated with meaning making. Moreover, generativity was significantly and positively related to psychological engagement, and predicted meaning making, even after controlling for psychological engagement. Findings suggest that different types of activities can offer a potential context for fostering early generativity and meaning making, and that generativity in adolescence and emerging adulthood is related to the development of insight and meaning making.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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