Using Language to Test Developmental Differences in Attitudes Toward Solitude in Adolescents and Emerging 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
ABSTRACT The goal of this study was to assess developmental differences in adolescents’ and emerging adults’ attitudes toward solitude using three different methodologies. Participants were N = 1224 adolescents ( n = 367, ages 15–18 years, M age = 16.13, SD = 0.54; 65.7% female) and emerging adults ( n = 857, aged 18–29 years, M age = 19.75 years, SD = 2.28; 70.2% female). Participants completed a rating scale assessing explicit attitudes towards solitude. Linguistic indices of attitudes were also derived from participants’ descriptions of someone who ‘enjoys and values solitude’, using both content analysis and sentiment analysis. Themes derived from a content analysis of these descriptions included ‘Introvert’, ‘Ambivert’, ‘Neutral’, ‘Positive’ and ‘Negative’. Lexicon‐based sentiment analysis was also completed to assess levels of valence, arousal and dominance in each description. Results indicate a complex set of inter‐associations among methodological approaches to measuring attitudes toward solitude. However, across all three methodologies, emerging adults displayed more positive views of solitude than adolescents.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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