Conception of Wisdom Resources Among Chinese Emerging and Young Adults
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
Emerging adults’ approaches to personal development in life may be revealed in their conception of wisdom resources (WRs), i.e., factors that lead to the development of wisdom. We explored the conception of WRs among 453 Chinese emerging and young adults aged 18–30. Participants completed an online questionnaire covering 19 potential WRs proposed by experts in the psychological study of wisdom and non-experts in Western and Chinese cultures. Participants indicated how much they agreed these factors lead to wisdom development. Afterward, they reported additional WRs not listed. The results revealed that “willingness to learn” was the most endorsed WR, while “religious/spiritual experience” was the least. Moreover, the conception of WRs varied significantly across different genders, ages, and education levels. Finally, although the conception of WRs among our participants was similar to that among Western laypeople, participants reported culturally unique WRs (e.g., motivation to pursue positive experiences, physical and psychological health). These findings may inspire future research on emerging adults’ wisdom development.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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