Ambition of young people - representatives of Y and Z generations
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
The article presents the results of a comparative analysis of self-assessment of ambition of students - representatives of Y and Z generations. The aim of the study was to identify the similarities and differences in self-esteem of ambition and the degree of its expression among young people of different generations. A cross-sectional survey of young people's ambition was conducted in 2009 (Gen Y youth) and 2020 (Gen Z youth). The study involved 200 young people aged 18-22: 106 young people of generation Y and 94 young people of generation Z. To study ambition, the “Ambition” questionnaire (O.V. Barsukova) was used. Most of the young people of generation Y assess themselves as ambitious or rather ambitious people (70.42%), slightly more than a quarter of students (28.17%) consider themselves to be un-ambitious people or rather un-ambitious than ambitious people. The minimum number of students found it difficult to assess themselves (1.41%). Most of the young people of generation Y rate their ambition as high (45.07%), about a third of them - as moderate (30.99%), about a quarter of them - as low (23.94%). The majority of young people of generation Z (70.22%) consider themselves ambitious people or rather ambitious than un-ambitious people, about a third of them (29.79%) consider themselves un-ambitious people or rather un-ambitious than ambitious people. There were no young people who found it difficult to assess themselves. Most of the young people of generation Z rate their ambition as moderate (51.06%), just over a third of them - as high (36.17%), the minimum number - as low (12.77%). There were no significant differences in the self-esteem of ambition and in the degree of its expression among young people belonging to different generations.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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