natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
5 Since k differed in different groups, we used the average number of interviewees per group, k = 6.69. 
5 Ker se je k pri različnih skupinah razlikoval, smo uporabili povprečno število anketirancev na skupino, in sicer k = 6,69.
MSMED and MSZN were calculated using one-way analyses of variance. 
MSMED in MSZN smo izračunali s pomočjo enosmerne analize variance.
Table 8: Standard error of estimate and conﬁ dence intervals for selected variables 
Preglednica 8: Standardne napake ocen in intervali zaupanja za izbrane spremenljivke
Percentage without weights 
Odstotek brez uteži
Corrected SE (p) 
SE (p)
95-percent conﬁ dence interval lower limit 
95-odstotni interval zaupanja spodnja meja
upper 
zgornja
limit 
meja
Q36 COMPUTER USE (How many such courses did you participate in over the past 12 months?); deff = 1.28 
V36 RAČUNALNIŠTVO (Koliko takih izobraževanj si se udeležil/-a v zadnjih 12 mesecih?); deﬀ = 1,28 1 Nobenkrat
1 None 
2 Enkrat
4 more than 3 times 
4 Več kot 3-krat
No response 
Brez odgovora
Q57 INTERESTING WORK (How important to you are each of the following things when you think about work?); deff = 1.84 
V57 ZANIMIVO DELO (Kako pomembna je zate vsaka od naslednjih stvari, ko pomisliš na službo?); deﬀ = 1,84
1 Not important at all 
1 Sploh ni pomembna
2 Of li le importance 
2 Malo pomembna
3 Of average importance 
3 Srednje pomembna
4 Quite important 
4 Dokaj pomembna
5 Very important 
5 Zelo pomembna
Q68 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES (What is your opinion of the following groups of people?); deff = 1.34 1 Generally bad 
V68 JAVNI USLUŽBENCI (Kakšno je tvoje mnenje o naslednjih skupinah ljudi?); deﬀ = 1,34 1 Pretežno slabo
2 Neutral 
2 Nevtralno
3 Generally good 
3 Pretežno dobro
Q76 I HAVE TO COMPETE WITH OTHERS TO SEE HOW GOOD I AM. 
V76 MORAM TEKMOVATI Z DRUGIMI, DA PREVERIM, KAKO DOBER/-RA SEM.
; deff = 1.46 1 Don't agree at all 
; deﬀ = 1,46 1 Sploh se ne strinjam
2 Don't agree 
2 Se ne strinjam
3 Neither agree nor disagree 
3 Niti se strinjam niti se ne strinjam
4 Agree 
4 Se strinjam
5 Agree entirely 
5 Popolnoma se strinjam
; deff = 1.49 0 Not at all 
0 Nikoli se ne ukvarjam
1 Up to 15 minutes 
1 Do 15 minut
2 15-30 minutes 
2 15-30 minut
3 30 minutes to 1 hour 
3 30 minut do 1 ure
4 1-2 hours 
4 1-2 uri
5 2-3 hours 
5 2-3 ure
6 More than 3 hours 
6 Več kot 3 ure
Q250 HOW OFTEN DO YOU EAT FRUIT AND VEGETABLES? 
V250 KAKO POGOSTO JEŠ SADJE IN ZELENJAVO?
; deff = 1.47 1 A few times a month or never 
; deﬀ = 1,47 1 Nekajkrat mesečno ali nikoli
2 Once a week 
2 Enkrat tedensko
3 Several times a week 
3 Večkrat na teden
4 Almost every day 
4 Skoraj vsak dan
5 Twice a day 
5 Dvakrat na dan
6 Three or more times a day 
6 Tri- in večkrat dnevno
Q255 I HAVE THE FEELING MY PARENTS LOVE ME VERY MUCH. 
V255 IMAM OBČUTEK, DA ME IMAJO STARŠI ZELO RADI.
; deff = 1.70 1 Not true at all 
; deﬀ = 1,70 1 Sploh ne velja
2 Not true 
2 Ne velja
3 Fairly true 
3 Srednje velja
4 True 
4 Velja
5 Very true 
5 Zelo velja
Q345 HOW OFTEN DO YOU DRINK ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES? 
V345 KAKO POGOSTO PIJEŠ ALKOHOLNE PIJAČE?
; deff = 1.44 1 Never 
; deﬀ = 1,44 1 Nikoli
2 Rarely 
2 Redko
3 Sometimes 
3 Včasih
4 Regularly 
4 Redno
1.2 Interviews with typical representatives of young people 
1.2 Intervjuji z značilnimi predstavniki mladih
The interviews, which were used as the basic method of collecting qualitative data, comprised two parts, non-structured and partly structured, while the design and application of the interviews were based on the concept of the directed interview (Flick, 2002: 77-80). 
Intervjuji, ki so bili uporabljeni kot temeljna metoda zbiranja kvalitativnih podatkov, so bili sestavljeni iz dveh delov, nestrukturiranega in delno strukturiranega, oblikovanje in uporaba intervjuja pa sta temeljila na konceptu usmerjenega intervjuja (Flick, 2002: 77-80).
The directed, partly structured interview comprised and was conducted in a series of questions where the structured nature in the interview gradually increased (ibid.: 75). 
Usmerjeni delno strukturirani intervju je bil sestavljen in izpeljan s serijo vprašanj, pri katerih je bila strukturiranost v intervju stopnjevana (prav tam: 75).
So for instance the first series of questions, the aim of which was to lead the interviewee into the interview and to set out the discursive field, was non-structured. 
Tako je bila na primer prva serija vprašanj, katere namen je bil uvedba intervjuvanca v intervju oziroma očrtanje diskurzivnega polja, nestrukturirana.
The other series of questions, the purpose of which was to focus on elements expressed in response to the first group of questions, was partly structured. 
Druga serija vprašanj, katere namen je bil osredotočenje na sestavine, ki so bile izražene kot odgovor na prvo skupino vprašanj, je bila delno strukturirana.
Once the interviews were completed, these fields were used as the fundamental guidelines for classifying and categorising data and for performing syntheses (see 15. 
Ta področja so bila po končanem intervjuju uporabljena tudi kot temeljna vodila za razvrščanje in kategorizacijo podatkov ter izvedbo sinteze (glej 15.
Synthesis), specifically in the subchapters Demographics and intergenerational cooperation; Education and training; Health and wellbeing; Employment, entrepreneurship, mobility and globalisation; Political participation and voluntary activities; Free time, culture, virtualisation; Sustainable way of functioning and Values and expectations regarding the personal and social future. 
Sinteza), in sicer v podpoglavja Demografija in medgeneracijsko sodelovanje; Izobraževanje in usposabljanje; Zdravje in dobro počutje; Zaposlovanje, podjetništvo, mobilnost in globalizacija; Politična participacija in prostovoljne dejavnosti; Prosti čas, kultura, virtualizacija; Trajnostni način delovanja ter Vrednote in pričakovanja glede osebne in družbene prihodnosti.
The profiles of young people that are presented in detail in the qualitative part of the report, and especially in Chapter 14. 
Profili mladih, ki so podrobneje predstavljeni v kvalitativnem delu poročila, še posebej pa v poglavju 14.
Research sample, were designed on the basis of the envisaged socio-economic characteristics of young people in Slovenia, and help in designing the sample was provided through a review of comparable European research (Shell, 2002; Leccardi, 2005; Shell, 2006). 
Raziskovalni vzorec, je bil oblikovan na podlagi predvidenih socioekonomskih značilnosti mladih v Sloveniji, kot pomoč pri oblikovanju vzorca pa je bil opravljen tudi pregled primerljivih evropskih raziskav (Shell 2002; Leccardi, 2005; Shell 2006).
Special attention was focused on appropriate gender and geographical diffusion, although an ideal distribution could not be ensured. 
Posebna pozornost je bila namenjena ustrezni spolni in geografski razpršenosti, čeprav idealne porazdelitve ni bilo mogoče zagotoviti.
Of the originally designed 32 profiles, 25 were included in the actual implementation; some profiles, owing to their good compatibility or large overlap, were merged into the general profile, while some were abandoned owing to inaccessibility of interviewees: 
Od prvotno oblikovanih 32 profilov je bilo v dejansko izvedbo vključenih 25; nekateri profili so bili zaradi dobre združljivosti oziroma velikega prekrivanja združeni v generalni profil, nekateri pa so bili zaradi nedostopnosti anketirancev opuščeni:
Table 9: Survey sample in the context of qualitative interviews, Youth 2010 
Preglednica 9: Raziskovalni vzorec v okviru izvajanja kvalitativnih intervjujev, Mladina 2010
Interviewee 
Intervjuvanec/-ka
Gašper 
Starost
Stane 
25 let
Davor 
25 let
Vali 
20 let
Grega 
18 let
Maja 
21 let
Oto 
25 let
Nejc 
22 let
Mateja 
29 let
Natalija 
16 let
Sabina 
22 let
Barbara 
Profil
Mojca 
mlada natakarica
Dani 
brezposelna mlada mamica
Aleš 
mladi Rom
Age 
uspešna gimnazijka
Profile 
mlada invalidka
young waitress 
obiskovalec zbirališča mladih Pekarna
virtualised youth 
uspešna študentka psihologije
By signing the consent they declared that they were participating in the interview voluntarily and that they authorised the compilers and authors of the report to collect the relevant data and use it for the survey. 
S podpisanim soglasjem so izjavili, da v intervjuju sodelujejo prostovoljno ter da izvajalcem in avtorjem poročila dovoljujejo, da zbrane podatke zberejo in uporabijo za raziskavo.
demanded absolute anonymity as a condition for participation, one of these three pieces of information was left out. 
Če so intervjuvanci kot pogoj za sodelovanje zahtevali absolutno anonimnost, je bil eden od teh treh podatkov izpuščen.
The interviews were audio recorded. 
Intervjuji so bili med izvajanjem avditivno zapisani.
The tape recordings made using dictaphones were intended for making up transcripts, which were later partly reformulated into individual portraits (see 14. 
Magnetogrami, posneti s pomočjo diktafona, so bili namenjeni oblikovanju zapisov, ti pa so bili pozneje delno preoblikovani v individualne portrete (glej 14.
Portraits), and partly in line with the thematic fields they were categorised and quantified as well as formed into a thematic synthesis of qualitative data (see 15. 
Portreti), delno pa v skladu s tematskimi področji kategorizirani in kvantificirani ter oblikovani v tematsko sintezo kvalitativnih podatkov (glej 15.
Synthesis). 
Sinteza).
1.3 Collecting and analysing secondary data The third source of data is databases created earlier by other researchers or institutions. 
6 Kot primer navajamo intervjuvanca Danija, ki je privolil v intervjuju pod pogojem, da zagotovimo višjo stopnjo anonimnosti.
European Social Surveys (ESS), f. Other surveys. 
Ključne prilagoditve v tem smislu so bile:
6 As an example we give the interviewee Dani, who consented to the interview on condition that we ensured a higher level of anonymity. 
• pri primerjavi z vzorcem slovenske mladine iz leta 1985 smo se
In comparing the Youth 2010 survey sample with other survey samples, special attention was focused on ensuring the compatibility of age groups and other demographic characteristics. 
le na dijake srednjih šol, stare od 15 do 18 let, saj je vzorec iz leta 1993 zajel le srednješolsko mladino;
Key adjustments in this regard were: 
• pri primerjavi z izsledki raziskave Mladina 1995 smo se omejili le
• in comparisons with the results of the Youth 1993 survey we limited ourselves just to secondary school pupils aged 15 to 18, since the sample from 1993 contained only secondary school youth; 
smo se omejili le na mlade med 15. in 25. letom, saj je vzorce nemške raziskave zajel mlade med 12. in 25. letom, naš vzorec pa je zajel starostno skupino 15-29 let;
• in comparisons with the results of the Youth 1995 survey we limited ourselves just to students, since the sample from 1993 contained only student youth; 
• pri vseh drugih primerjavah smo se (razen če to ni posebej navedeno
• in all other comparisons (unless specifically stated and reasoned) we limited ourselves to youth aged 15 to 29. 
in argumentirano) omejili na mlade med 15. in 29. letom starosti.
All sources used are cited on use. 
Vsi uporabljeni viri se navajajo sproti.
1.4 Statistical analysis procedures used 
1.4 Uporabljeni postopki statistične analize
This study used the statistical methods and indicators that are most widespread in sociological research, and that are at the same time sufficiently understandable to a wide circle of readers. 
V študiji smo uporabili tiste statistične metode in kazalnike, ki so v družboslovnem raziskovanju najbolj razširjeni, hkrati pa tudi dovolj razumljivi širšemu krogu bralcev.
The fundamental level of analysis is of course frequency distributions, which we regularly present in a bivariate form, in other words in the context of contingency tables (crosstabs). 
Temeljna raven analize so seveda frekvenčne porazdelitve, ki jih pogosto prestavljamo bivariatno, torej v okviru kontingenčnih preglednic (crosstabs).
The main - and in the authors' opinion the most interesting - distributions are presented in the report itself in the form of graphs. 
Najpomembnejše in po mnenju avtorjev najzanimivejše porazdelitve so v obliki grafikonov predstavljene tudi v samem poročilu.
The next frequently used statistical indicators are arithmetic means attained by individual ordinal or interval variables. 
Naslednji pogosto uporabljeni statistični kazalniki so aritmetične sredine, ki so jih dosegle posamezne ordinalne ali intervalne spremenljivke.
The values of the mean values thus calculated within the analysed sample are primarily simplified indicators of the level of presence of a given phenomenon (for instance: agreeing with individual assertions). 
Vrednosti tako izračunanih srednjih vrednosti znotraj obravnavanega vzorca so predvsem poenostavljeni kazalniki stopnje prisotnosti nekega pojava (na primer: strinjanja s posameznimi trditvami).
We arrived at what are sociologically more interesting conclusions by means of the coefficients of the statistical correlation of two variables. 
Do sociološko še zanimivejših sklepov smo prišli z uporabo koeficientov statistične korelacije dveh spremenljivk.
For links between variables where there at least one is nominal and it has at the same time more than two values, we used the contingency coefficient (C), and for pairs of ordinal and interval variables we used the Pearson correlation coefficient (r). 
Za povezave med spremenljivkama, med katerima je vsaj ena nominalna in ima hkrati več kot dve vrednosti, smo uporabljali koeficient kontingence (C), za pare ordinalnih in intervalnih spremenljivk pa Pearsonov koeficient korelacije (r).
A number of times we also used the tool of factor analysis, by means of which we sought hidden and latent variables - factors with which we can interpret the mutual links of several variables under discussion. 
Večkrat smo uporabili tudi orodje faktorske analize, s pomočjo katere smo iskali skrite, latentne spremenljivke - faktorje, s katerimi lahko razložimo medsebojne povezanosti več obravnavanih spremenljivk.
We used the method of fundamental components, which is not a part of factor analysis in the strict sense, but given its various advantages is most frequently used for such analysis. 
Uporabili smo metodo temeljnih komponent, ki sicer ne spada v faktorsko analizo v ožjem smislu, vendar pa je zaradi različnih prednosti najpogosteje uporabljena za take analize.
Andy Field recommends this analysis because it involves a psychometrically solid process that is conceptually less complex than factor analysis in the strict sense (which is based on a range of assumptions regarding the analysed data), while at the same time it yields almost the same results as the classical factor techniques (Field, 2005: 631). 
Andy Field priporoča to analizo, ker gre za psihometrično soliden (trden) postopek, ki je konceptualno manj kompleksen kot faktorska analiza v ožjem smislu (ta ob tem temelji na vrsti predpostavk glede analiziranih podatkov), hkrati pa daje skoraj enake rezultate kot klasične faktorske tehnike (Field, 2005: 631).
Field believes that in the humanities and social sciences there are practically no cases where the use of a different (orthogonal) rotation technique would make sense (ibid. 637). 
Field meni, da v humanističnih in družbenih vedah pravzaprav skorajda ni primera, ko bi bila smiselna uporaba druge (ortogonalne) tehnike rotacije (prav tam: 637).
In specific terms we used Promax, a slightly simpler procedure. 
Konkretno smo uporabljali nekoliko preprostejši postopek Promax .
In separating out (extracting) factors we observed the classical Kaiser criterion and excluded those factors whose own (eigen-) value is greater than 1. 
Pri izločanju (ekstrahiranju) faktorjev smo upoštevali klasično Kaiserjevo merilo in izločili tiste faktorje, katerih lastna (eigen-) vrednost je višja od 1.
In interpreting factor loadings, in line with Stevens' recommendation (1992) we limited ourselves to factor loadings with an absolute value of at least 0.4. 
Pri razlagi faktorskih obremenitev (angl. factor loadings) smo se skladno s Stevensovim priporočilom (1992) omejili samo na faktorske obremenitve z absolutno vrednostjo vsaj 0,4.
Analysis of fundamental components was also a tool for obtaining new variables (factors), which represented indicators for various theoretical concepts. 
Analiza temeljnih komponent je bila tudi orodje za pridobivanje novih spremenljivk (faktorjev), ki so predstavljale kazalnike za različne teoretične koncepte.
We calculated the new variables on the basis of the arithmetic means of all variables of the individual factor for each individual interviewee. 
Nove spremenljivke smo izračunali na podlagi aritmetičnih sredin vseh spremenljivk posameznega faktorja za vsakega posamičnega anketiranca.
Furthermore, we checked the validity of such a merging of variables by means of the Cronbach (α) coefficient of the internal consistency of scales. 
Dodatno smo veljavnost takega združevanja spremenljivk preverili še s pomočjo Cronbachovega (a) koeficienta interne konsistentnosti lestvic.
1.5 Sources used 
1.5 Uporabljeni viri
London: 
London: Sage
Sage Publication Ltd. 
Publication Ltd.
Faculty of Sports. 
Fakulteta za šport.
Vehovar, V., and Kalton, G. (2001): Vzorčenje v anketah. 
Vehovar, V., in Kalton, G. (2001): Vzorčenje v anketah.
Miran Lavrič and Rudi Klanjšek 
Miran Lavrič in Rudi Klanjšek
10 Residential and housing conditions of young people 
10 Stanovanjske in bivanjske razmere mladih
As established by Mandič (2009; in Boljka and Rakar 2009), analyses of the residential and housing conditions of young people are interesting and important from the aspect of the functioning of the housing supply system (youth housing conditions as an indicator of the functioning of the housing supply system), from the aspect of demographic reproduction (independent residence as a function of establishing an independent household) and the aspect of the housing vulnerability of youth (youth access to housing, suitability). 
Kot ugotavlja Mandičeva (2009; v Boljka in Rekar, 2009), so analize stanovanjskih in bivanjskih razmer mladih zanimive in pomembne z vidika delovanja sistema stanovanjske oskrbe (stanovanjske razmere mladih kot kazalnik delovanja sistema stanovanjske oskrbe), z vidika demografske reprodukcije (samostojno stanovanje kot funkcija ustanavljanja samostojnega gospodinjstva) in z vidika stanovanjske ranljivosti mladih (dostop mladih do stanovanja, njegova primernost).
With regard to youth housing problems, the relatively late moving away of young people from their parents' homes has been a particularly pressing recent problem among the Slovenian public. 
Pri stanovanjski problematiki mladih je v slovenski javnosti v zadnjem času posebej aktualno vprašanje razmeroma poznega odseljevanja mladih od njihovih staršev.
The transition to an independent household is frequently understood in the literature and in public debate as one of the key markers of the transition to adulthood. 
Prehod k samostojnemu gospodinjstvu se v literaturi in v javni zaznavi pogosto razume kot eden ključnih označevalcev prehoda v odraslost.
However, as researchers have found, this transition is often multi-layered and fluid. 
Toda kot ugotavljajo raziskovalci, je ta prehod mnogokrat večplasten in fluiden.
Therefore several dimensions of leaving home appear in the literature, and are analysed separately. 
V literaturi se zato pojavlja več razsežnosti odhoda, ki se potem analizirajo ločeno.
10.1 Why Slovenian youth delay leaving home 
10.1 Zakaj mladi v Sloveniji odlašajo s preselitvijo od staršev
Research of the age at which youth leave their parents' home indicates that there are substantial differences between societies. 
Raziskave glede starosti mladih pri odseljevanju od staršev kažejo na precejšne razlike med družbami.
As Mulder (2009) finds in her analysis of the most economically well developed societies, the greatest differences lie on the north-south axis: young people leave their parents' home earliest in Northern Europe (led by young people from Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark) and North America, and latest in Southern Europe (Italy, Spain). 
Kot na primeru analize gospodarsko najrazvitejših družb ugotavlja Mulderjeva (2009), obstajajo največje v smeri sever-jug: najhitreje dom svojih staršev zapustijo mladi v severni Evropi (prednjačijo mladi iz Norveške, Švedske, Finske in Danske) in Severni Ameriki, najpozneje pa odidejo mladi iz južne Evrope (Italija, Španija).
Slovenia ranks among the European countries with the highest percentage of youths, men and women between 18 and 34, who live with their parents (Mandič 2009; 2008). 
Slovenija je med tistimi evropskimi državami, ki imajo najvišji odstotek mladih, moških in žensk, starih med 18 in 34 let, ki živijo s starši (Mandič, 2009; 2008).
While Mandič (2009) on the basis of data from 2003 states that 48 per cent of youth in this age group live with their parents (the percentage is higher for men and lower for young women), Vertot (2009) finds on the basis of data from 2004 that the percentage is even higher for the group between 25 and 35 - a full 57 per cent of whom still live at home. 
Medtem ko Mandičeva (2009) na podlagi podatkov iz leta 2003 navaja, da v tej starostni skupini skupaj s starši živi 48 odstotkov mladih (delež je višji za moške in nižji za mlade ženske), pa Vertotova (2009) na podlagi podatkov iz leta 2004 ugotavlja, da je delež še višji, ko gre skupino, staro med 25 in 35 let - kar 57 odstotkov naj bi jih še živelo doma.
Data from the World Values Survey (2009) together with data from our survey (for 2010) give a clearer picture over time. 
Podatki Svetovne raziskave vrednot (World Values Survey, 2009) skupaj s podatki naše raziskave (za leto 2010) ponujajo še jasnejši vpogled v časovni perspektivi.
Graph 103: Percentage of young people between 25 and 29 who live in households with their parents, 1992-2010 
Grafikon 103: Deleži mladih med 25. in 29. letom, ki živijo v gospodinjstvu skupaj s starši, 1992-2010
SOURCES: World Values Survey 2009 and Youth 2010 
VIRA: World Values Survey 2009 in Mladina 2010
The data from the Slovenian Youth surveys from 2000 and 2010 on the percentages of youth who live in families together with their mother is even more telling: 
Še zgovornejši je podatek iz raziskav slovenske mladine 2000 in 2010 o deležih mladih, ki živijo v družini skupaj z materjo:
In the period 2000-2010, the percentage of youth between 25 and 29 who live in a shared household with their mother increased from 45.4 per cent to 66.8 per cent. 
Delež mladih med 25. in 29. letom, ki živijo v skupnem gospodinjstvu z materjo, se je v obdobju 2000-2010 povečal s 45,4 na 66,8 odstotka.
Although the data are slightly different from the data on the percentage of youth who live in their parents' households, the basic trend is entirely clear and indicates a stable and relatively steep trend of delaying leaving the parents' home. 
Čeprav se podatki v primerjavi z deleži mladih, ki živijo v gospodinjstvu staršev, rahlo razlikujejo, je osnovni trend povsem jasen ter kaže na stabilen in dokaj oster trend odlaganja odselitve od staršev.
According to Eurostat data (Choroszevicz and Wolf, 2010), Slovenia was in second place in the EU-27 with regard to the percentage of youth between 18 and 34 who in 2008 still lived with their parents. 
Po podatkih Eurostata (Choroszevicz in Wolf, 2010) je bila Slovenija v EU-27 na drugem mestu glede odstotka mladih, starih med 18 in 34 let, ki so leta 2008 še vedno živeli s starši.
Choroszevicz and Wolf list the following as the primary factors of the differences between the countries: 
Choroszevicz in Wolf kot dejavnike takih razlik med državami navajata predvsem:
1. material opportunities for creating independent households. 
1. materialne možnosti za ustvarjanje samostojnega gospodinjstva.
In this respect the key factors are access to suitable employment and conditions on the real estate market; 
V tem smislu sta ključna dejavnika predvsem dostopnost ustrezne zaposlitve in razmere na trgu nepremičnin;
2. inclusion of youth in education. 
2. vključenost mladih v izobraževanje.
Higher inclusion percentages correlate with remaining in the parents' household longer; 
Večji deleži vključenosti so povezani z daljšim ostajanjem v gospodinjstvu staršev;
3. moving necessitated by education or job. 
3. nujnost preseljevanja zaradi izobraževanja ali zaposlovanja.