MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048543487 · doi:10.4236/ti.2012.34033

Students’ Choice of Major and Future Occupations: Implications for Education Policy

2012· article· en· W2048543487 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Flora María Díaz Pérez, Olga González‐Morales

Bibliographic record

VenueTechnology and Investment · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Systems and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman capitalOrder (exchange)Position (finance)Investment (military)Subject (documents)Public policyPublic relationsPsychologyPolitical scienceSociologyEconomic growthBusinessEconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The factors that determine and influence the choices made by male and female students with regard to their studies and future occupations need to be taken into account in decisions concerning the targeting of human capital investment and the type of policies to be implemented in order to facilitate the transition of young people to working life. In the present study we consider the role played by gender, individual career aspirations and school characteristics in young people’s subject choice in the education system of the Canary Islands (Spain). Specifically, the results indicate that, as a rule, Humanities are chosen by female students who hope to obtain employment in a subordinate post and who study in non-urban public schools in which the careers teacher is not part of the management team. In the other hand, Science & Technology are chosen by men who study in urban private schools in which the careers teacher is part of the management team, and their main occupational aspiration is a managerial 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.665
Threshold uncertainty score0.213

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.389 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTechnology and InvestmentSame topicEducation Systems and PolicyFrench-language works237,207