MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Australian Social Policy and the Genesis of the Twenty-Five Year Old Adolescent

2005· article· en· W4229566956 on OpenAlexaff
James G. Barber

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Bioethics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Education and Societal Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAllowance (engineering)Welfare dependencyGovernment (linguistics)WelfareIndependence (probability theory)UnemploymentYouth unemploymentSocial WelfarePolitical sciencePsychologyEconomic growthEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We are very confused in Australia about the point of entry to adulthood, with different age ranges for different government programs existing side-by-side. Under the Federal Labor Government's Youth Homeless allowance, it was possible for children as young as 13 years to live independently with only minimal supervision from State Welfare departments. In 1989 The Burdekin Inquiry into youth homelessness together with a series of well publicised failures by child welfare authorities was partly responsible for a new protocol by the Federal-State Council of Social Welfare Ministers which increased the level of supervision of young ‘independent’; children, and thereby appeared to raise the threshold age for adulthood. The most important mechanism for the transition to independence and to adulthood is work and the level of youth unemployment (triple the national average between 15–19 years) is also extending dependency and thus, childhood. The trend towards the extension of childhood dependency received formal sanction through the Coalition Government's Youth Allowance which now makes it possible for a child to remain dependent on his or her parents until age 25 years.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.218
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.011
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal BioethicsSame topicYouth Education and Societal DynamicsFrench-language works237,207