Embracing the hidden potential: The contribution of majority world research to developmental science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on adolescence from the Majority World possesses major hidden potential in contributing to global adolescent research and developmental science more broadly. In this commentary, the authors (1) describe the background and the process through which this special issue came into fruition, (2) introduce the emic approaches to study the influences of macro-contextual variations on developmental science and provide several pertinent examples on the contributions of Majority World research, (3) elaborate on challenges and barriers that Majority World scholars often face in conducting and disseminating their research, and (4) a few actionable steps and recommendations in promoting the representation and inclusion of Majority World research into global developmental science. Only when our field fully integrates findings from all regions of the world will we be able to develop a fundamental scientific representation and understanding of what it means to be an adolescent, how adolescents develop over time, and what tasks or phenomena in adolescent development are truly universal or specific to particular groups, regions, or areas.
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 | 0.089 | 0.123 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| 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".