How Did I Become Me?—Identical Female Twins Describe the Development of Their Individuality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p> </p><p>The purpose of this study was to describe the development of individuality and identity in female twins in the light of their upbringing experiences as described by themselves. Twin studies have traditionally been quantitative comparisons to singletons. On the one hand, research has drawn a mythical picture of twins, and one the other hand, studies have focused on the difficulties of growing as a separate, individual person. This was a qualitative study in which five Finnish identical female twins participated. They were interviewed with a themed interview method. In addition, they were asked to write about their upbringing and childhood. The sets of data were analyzed with a qualitative content analysis method. The results show that the twins’ identity development was challenged with clues given by their parents, from school and wider community, as well as by the impression they themselves had given to others about twinhood. Their individuality developed within the interaction between the sense of belonging together and other social relationships. The study also shows the important role of upbringing in identity development.</p><p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><br /></span></p>
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 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) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".