Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to suggest basic information of resilience to the future researches by analyzing a total of 65 in August 2013 from 2000 in the journal of home economics department and psychology. First, resilience studies began since 2001. In 2012, resilience researches was studied actively as an increasing trend. Second, subjects were studied as elementary school students, adults and parents, adulthood, teacher and speciality consultant and multi-cultural family in order, while relatively infants were few. Third, purpose of studies were individual protective factors and dangerous factors, factors related on parents and family and multi-cultural families in order. And subjects studied the most were elementary school students, adulthood and then multi-cultural families. Especially, the subject for transnational marriage and families were interested picks up in these days because of the growing trend in Korea. Forth, the study researches of the sampling personnel were mainly more than ‘200 or 300 people’. The reason of this result was that many researches used questionnaire method. Fifth, measurements of resilience were used Block and Kremen(1996) scale, Klohnen(1996) scale and Block & Block(1980) scale in domestic research. They were translated into Korean. But scales for adult and family were used by reconstituting the established scales for components of resilience. So it needed to make resilience measurements for each age group. Sixth, this study was for the trend of resilience researches in domestic focus on the journal of home economics department and psychology. Through this results of study, it needed to be studied in various subjects and research field from youth to adult equally. And also methods was researched by using qualitative research method more than quantitative research such as questionnaire method.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.303 | 0.222 |
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".