‘Next Generation Youth Well-being Study:’ understanding the health and social well-being trajectories of Australian Aboriginal adolescents aged 10–24 years: study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Australian Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander (hereafter referred to as 'Aboriginal') adolescents (10-24 years) experience multiple challenges to their health and well-being. However, limited evidence is available on factors influencing their health trajectories. Given the needs of this group, the young age profile of the Aboriginal population and the long-term implications of issues during adolescence, reliable longitudinal data are needed. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The 'Next Generation: Youth Well-being Study' is a mixed-methods cohort study aiming to recruit 2250 Aboriginal adolescents aged 10-24 years from rural, remote and urban communities in Central Australia, Western Australia and New South Wales. The study assesses overall health and well-being and consists of two phases. During phase 1, we qualitatively explored the meaning of health and well-being for adolescents and accessibility of health services. During phase 2, participants are being recruited into a longitudinal cohort. Recruitment is occurring mainly through community networks and connections. At baseline, participants complete a comprehensive survey and undertake an extensive age relevant clinical assessment. Survey and clinical data will be linked to various databases including those relating to health services; medication; immunisation; hospitalisations and emergency department presentations; death registrations; education; child protection and corrective services. Participants will receive follow-up surveys approximately 2 years after their baseline visit. The 'Next Generation' study will fill important evidence gaps by providing longitudinal data on the health and social well-being of Aboriginal adolescents supplemented with narratives from participants to provide context. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approvals have been sought and granted. Along with peer-reviewed publications and policy briefs, research findings will be disseminated via reports, booklets and other formats that will be most useful and informative to the participants and community organisations.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.006 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".