Doctors and Garbage Men: Unpacking Post-Secondary Students' Perceptions of Occupational Prestige
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research in the field of occupational prestige often involves ranking occupations or their attributes in an attempt to understand the variables that, taken together, produce a collective understanding of prestige that justifies the hierarchy of occupations in society. These studies acknowledge, generally, that while the ingredients of prestige may differ, it is an unavoidable feature of social interaction. What is less well-researched is how prestige affects the individual, particularly regarding his or her personal occupational aspirations. This study is a preliminary comparison of idealized and prestigious occupations in order to determine whether there is a correlation between the jobs esteemed by society and those idealized by the individual. In other words, it is an attempt to see whether the “best ” jobs are what people actually want for themselves. After surveying three hundred and forty-four students at five post-secondary institutions in Nova Scotia, Canada, it was found that although prestigious and idealized occupations may be highly correlated in children, perceptions of prestige alter as children age and become more cognizant of cultural and societal values. Yet, although prestige is an abstract social concept, with components that differ due to the socioeconomic status and culture of those qualifying it, it is evaluated through attributes that are inherently personal. It is time to set aside debates on the location of occupations in the prestige hierarchy and instead question its very formation and continuing existence. Ultimately, this paper argues that prestige is an outdated
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".