MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978789966 · doi:10.1177/0020715214527101

Contextual effects on subjective social position: Evidence from European countries

2014· article· en· W1978789966 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kristina Lindemann, Ellu Saar

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Comparative Sociology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial positionPosition (finance)European Social SurveyInequalitySocial inequalitySocial mobilityHierarchyPsychologyDemographic economicsSocial psychologySociologyEconomicsPolitical scienceSocial relationSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated subjective social position in 21 European countries using data from the social inequality module of the International Social Survey Programme 2009. Subjective social position shows people’s self-location in a social hierarchy. Most studies on subjective social position have typically involved a few countries and neglected the role of national educational and occupational structures. We hypothesise that these characteristics, together with national-level economic factors, modify the effect of individual-level characteristics on subjective social location. Our expectations are based on extended reference group thesis, the big-fish-little-pond and stigmatisation arguments. The results of multi-level analysis indicated that the extent of educational and income inequalities in society as well as occupational structures influence the importance of individual incomes, education and occupations for estimating social position.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.343 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations92
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Comparative SociologySame topicPsychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionFrench-language works237,207