Soporte social y calidad de vida en adolescentes trabajadores del distrito de San Martín de Porres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
--- The investigation concerns a comparative descriptive study of social support and \nquality of life according to the condition of being or not being a teen street worker \nsample consisted of 60 young street workers and 60 non-working adolescents of \nboth sexes 13 to 17 years in the district of San Martín de Porres. Inventory was \nadministered social support Flaherty, Gaviria and Pathak and scale of quality of life \nof David Olson and Howard Barnes. The results show that the social support for \nyoung street workers is Moderate, standing there on 46.67% of the sample, while \nslightly more than the same quarter of 28.33%, report having a low level social \nsupport. On the other hand, the level of social support in adolescents who do not \nwork on the street is also modest, reaching there 40% of the sample, while just \nover a third of them 38.33%, report having a low social support. For its part, the \npredominant level of quality of life in adolescents street workers is not optimal, only \none out of 4 (25%) reported an optimum level, while the predominant level of \nquality of life in adolescents street workers is not optimal, at this level to 70% of the \nsample, indicating that only 3 out of 10 reports an optimal living. We can also relate \nthat there was no difference in the level of social support between men and women \nwhether they are employees of the street, and the same between male and female \nadolescents workers and not street workers are no different in the level of \nperceived quality of life they have. \nThe Key Words: Social Support, Quality of Life, Adolescents Workers and no \nAdolescents Workers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".