Adolescents Constructing Their Imagined Futures Through Dialogues With and/or About Nonfamilial Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Adolescents actively explore future imaginings as they prepare for major educational, work, and personal transitions. Although family members may support exploration of imagined futures, adults outside adolescents' kin network provide access to resources not supplied within the family. The purpose of this study was to understand how adolescents actively draw on social resources of nonfamilial adults relative to their imagined futures. METHODS: Adolescents attending two schools in British Columbia, Canada participated in a year-long study involving at least three face to face sessions and biweekly telephone calls. Participants (N = 13; eight identified as boys, four as girls, one as nonbinary; mean age = 14.92, SD = 1.60) were asked to invite nonfamilial adults from their social network to conversations about the future. RESULTS: Two youth invited an adult to the research while the majority of participants (n = 11) explicitly changed the protocol by engaging with the researchers rather than bringing nonfamilial adults to the research. The change in the protocol was incorporated into analysis to try to understand participants' engagement in the research. Analysis revealed participants' overall intentions were to engage with adults, using the connections to test and refine imagined futures. Imagined future projects aligned with three clusters: practicing claims, navigating the line in the sand (difficulties crossing into adult realms), and resisting incongruent views of themselves. CONCLUSION: Findings illustrate adolescents' intention to alter the study protocol rather than dropping out and how adolescents' engagement with nonfamilial adults supported opportunities to test and refine imagined futures in the service of constructing identities.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".