Millennial Generations & Their Parents: Similarities and Differences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to investigate the similarities and differences between the youth generation and their parents. The youth’s generation’s personality characteristics, work values, life style, social and cultural values, preference of communications ways seems different from their parent’s generation. The previous information helps parents to provide effective parenting strategies to develop their offspring’s personalities, abilities, and potential to the ultimate level. Also, the research findings will help family counselors, university counselors, educators, and administrators to understand the youths, as well as provide effective services for them to enhance their growth level in different areas. A sample of 616 students consisting of male and female students was selected randomly from eight scientific and humanities colleges at Sultan Qaboos University. A questionnaire was used to measure factors that generate similarities and differences between the youth generations and their parents. The reliability and the validity of the instrument were high and suitable for implementation. The study shows that the millennial generation has similarity to parents in the cultural values, work values. Differences indicated in the communication styles and optimism in the new generations due to social media and technology effect. Farther results of the current study were discussed in details. This study gives the needed insight for the governmental agencies in getting better understanding of the needs of current youth. The recommendation for parents, family counselors, university counselors, educators and administrators was 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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 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".