Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study aims to distinguish objects and events, which teens and adolescents include in their life's spaces, explore differences in attitudes towards life spaces, and determine the level of life's space satisfaction of the youth via narrative psycholinguistic research. Methods: Methodological approaches inhered in interviewing and content analysis of the texts by calculating the frequency and investigating the components of the life's space category references that were defined based on the narrative compositions. The validity of categorisation was proved by propositional analysis. Spearman's rank correlation method was used. Results: The research results showed that stories people tell us holds powerful sway over their memories, behaviours, and identities. The youth's space was analysed within three content blocks: structural, interpretational, and evaluative. The structural block defined categories: people; city; habitable space; educational institution; social environment and information; activity; nature; state and patriotism; the inner world. The interpretational block analysis defined interpretational judgments and attributions of the responsibility for actions and changes in the participants' lives. The evaluative block analysis revealed the significant differences between teenagers and adolescents and between females and males in terms of life's space evaluation. Conclusions: The structure of teens’ and adolescents’ live space is similar, but its interpretation and evaluation are significantly different. Proceeding from teenage to adolescence is followed by such changes as growing dissatisfaction of the existing life's space and the wish to change it; growing internality, i.e., understanding personal responsibility of the life's space formation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".