Social Capital and Educational Aspiration of Students: Does Family Social Capital Affect More Compared to School Social Capital?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p class="apa">Resources from multiple social contexts influence students’ educational aspiration. In the field of social capital a neglected issue is how students obtain social capital from varying contexts and which contexts benefit them more to shape their future educational plan which consequently affects their level of aspiration. In this study, we aim to examine whether the students’ social capital, which is created by their families, has an extensive effect in shaping their educational aspiration compared to the social capital which is created in schools. We use the information collected from 553 students, their parents and 225 teachers from 12 selected secondary schools in Bangladesh. We conduct a series of multiple linear regression analyses to estimate the influence of family social capital and school social capital on the dependent variable of educational aspiration. To compare the effect size of family social capital and school social capital we consider the standardized Beta (β) weights of these two variables. The results show that beyond the socio-economic status, both family social capital and school social capital positively affect students’ educational aspiration. In addition, when we compare the effect size of these two variables, results show that family social capital has more strength compared to school social capital to predict the educational aspiration outcome of students.</p>
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".