Transition-To-Adulthood Profiles and Well-Being: Similarities and Distinctions Among Urban and Remote Contexts
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
In this study, two different contexts were examined to identify and describe transition-to-adulthood profiles at age 25 (based on four adulthood markers) and to determine whether these profiles differ in well-being at age 25. Two French-Canadian samples (urban sample, N = 321; remote sample, N = 363) completed questionnaires at age 25 regarding adulthood markers (having left school, being a parent or expecting a child, having left the parental home, and being in a romantic relationship) and well-being (depressive symptoms, alcohol use, and self-esteem). A person-centered approach helped determine the presence of five distinct profiles for both samples: workers, parents, independent students, singles, late bloomers. The results indicated similarities and differences between contexts regarding the experience of transition to adulthood and demonstrated that youth’s well-being is associated with their profile and their context. This study contributes to the literature on emerging adulthood by describing heterogeneity in the transition to adulthood.
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 | 0.001 | 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