Doing for others: Youth's contributing behaviors and psychological engagement in youth‐adult partnerships
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
Youth contributions to others (e.g., volunteering) have been connected to indicators of successful development, including self-esteem, optimism, social support, and identity development. Youth-adult partnerships, which involve youth and adults working together towards a shared goal in activity settings, such as youth-serving agencies or recreation organizations, provide a unique opportunity for examining youth contributions. We examined associations between measures of youth's participation in youth-adult partnerships (psychological engagement and degree of partnering) in activity settings and youth contributing behaviors, in two Canadian samples: (a) community-involved youth (N = 153, mean age = 17.1 years, 65% female) and (b) undergraduates (N = 128, mean age = 20.1 years, 92.2% female). We found that degree of partnering and psychological engagement were related to each other yet independently predicted contributing behaviors. Our findings suggest that youth-adult partnerships might be one potentially rich context for the promotion of youth's contributions to others.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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