Young Canadians’ Desire to Change the World and the Adults Who Support Them
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Generativity involves care and concern for future generations as a legacy of the self. It is a central developmental task in midlife for both individual well-being, and for a functioning society. As such, opportunities to foster generativity in youth have lasting benefits. There is growing evidence examining correlates of generativity with youth. To date, however, these studies rely mostly on university samples, and are somewhat homogeneous with respect to demographic representation. At the same time, youth engagement supported by adults has also been linked to youth identity development (generally considered a precursor to generativity) and has been identified as a positive feature in youth programs. While youth engagement likely benefits generative development, there is no empirical research to date linking them together. Therefore, in this chapter we present survey findings from over 600 youth of diverse backgrounds, from a community sample, aged 12 to 28 years old, who participated in various youth programs across Canada. Our literature review and research findings highlight the importance of fostering youth generativity and note that youth programming supported by adult allies is a fruitful context for this task.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".