Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette étude explore, par le moyen d'entrevues individuelles struc‐turées mensés auprés de 1209 jeunes de 17 ans, l'importance et la manière dont la position du jeune dans la structure sociale influence sa description du travail. Nous faisons la démonstration que le principe organisational primaire utilisé lorsque le jeune donne ses perceptions sur l'occupation de ses parents correspond a la position de leur emploi dans la structure des classes sociales. En revanche, c'est plutôt le sexe du jeune qui prédomine comme facteur quand il s'agit de ses attentes au regard de l'emploi qu’ il entend occuper. Pour ce qui est de l'occupation de femme au foyer, les résultats sont relativement imprécis. Le principe cognitif fondamental à l'ceuvre lorsque le jeune examine l'occupation de ses parents est de nature évaluative. De fait, il y a une mise en contraste des caracteristiques désirables et non désirables de l'emploi de ses parents. Cette évaluation oppositionnelle s'estompe lorsque le jeune pense a son futur emploi, sauf pour ce qui est des jeunes hommes issus de la classe ouvrière: ceux‐ci s'attendent davantage à ce que leur emploi possède des caractéristiques dites négatives. The extent and manner in which youth's description of work reflects their location in the social structure is explored using face‐to‐face structured interview responses from 1,209 17‐year‐olds. In this paper we will show that social class is the primary organizing principle when youth look at their parents' work, whereas it is gender with respect to their own expected work. Finally, the work of a homemaker remains relatively amorphous. The fundamental cognitive principle when youth looks at parental occupations is an evaluative one, contrasting desirable with undesirable work characteristics. This evaluative opposition evaporates when youth think about their own future jobs, except among working‐class boys, who are more likely to expect work with undesirable characteristics.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".