MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891724419 · doi:10.1037/dev0000563

The codevelopment of community involvement and generative concern pathways in emerging and young adulthood.

2018· article· en· W2891724419 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kendall Soucie, Fanli Jia, Na Zhu, Michael W. Pratt

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Psychology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicIdentity, Memory, and Therapy
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenerativityPsychologyPsycINFODevelopmental psychologyYoung adultAdult developmentGenerative grammarLongitudinal studyLatent growth modelingMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this longitudinal Canadian study, we investigated the relationship between the developmental trajectories of community involvement and generative concern measured at ages 23, 26, and 32. Participants completed a questionnaire on youth involvement, the Youth Involvement Inventory (YII), and the Loyola Generativity Scale (LGS) at all 3 ages. A latent growth model (LGM) of community involvement predicting time-specific variance in the LGS revealed that: (a) higher levels of community involvement at age 23 predicted greater generative concern at ages 23 and 26, but not at age 32; (b) there were 3 specific indirect paths linking age 23 community involvement to age 32 generativity through earlier assessments of age 23 and age 26 generative concern; and finally (c) a more positive slope of community involvement over time predicted higher levels of generative concern at age 32. These findings suggest that early involvement in community commitments, and increases in community involvement across emerging adulthood, may lead individuals down a path toward a more generative personality in young adulthood. (PsycINFO Database Record

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.468
Threshold uncertainty score0.677

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations19
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental PsychologySame topicIdentity, Memory, and TherapyFrench-language works237,207