Monitoring Health and Well-Being in Emerging Adults: Protocol for a Pilot Longitudinal Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Emerging adulthood is a unique segment of an individual's life course. The defining features of this transitional period include identity exploration, instability, future possibilities, self-focus, and feeling in-between adolescence and adulthood, all of which are thought to affect quality of life, health, and well-being. A longitudinal cohort study with a comprehensive set of measures would be a unique and valuable resource for improving the understanding of the multi-faceted elements and unique challenges that contribute to the health and well-being of emerging adults. OBJECTIVE: The main aim of this pilot study is to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of recruiting university graduates to establish a longitudinal cohort study to inform our understanding of emerging adulthood. METHODS: This is a pilot longitudinal cohort study of Australian university graduates. It will involve collecting information via online surveys (baseline and 12-month follow-up) and data linkage with health records. Recruitment, response, and retention rates will be calculated. Descriptive analysis of the representativeness of recruited participants and completeness of survey responses will be conducted. RESULTS: Participant recruitment was completed in October 2018, and data collection for the baseline and follow-up surveys was completed in November 2019. As of April 2020, the process of acquiring health records from administrative data collections has commenced. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this pilot study will identify areas for improvement and inform the development of a future longitudinal cohort study of emerging adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618001364268; https://tinyurl.com/teec8wh. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/16108.
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 | 0.050 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.012 |
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".