MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2318061877 · doi:10.1177/1477878514530231

Cultural capital or habitus? Bourdieu and beyond in the explanation of enduring educational inequality

2014· article· en· W2318061877 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTheory and Research in Education · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Cultural Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHabitusCultural capitalSociologyCognitive reframingEducational inequalityCultural reproductionPractice theoryEpistemologySocial reproductionInequalityPositivismField (mathematics)Positive economicsSocial scienceSocial capitalSocial psychologyPsychologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evidence for Bourdieu’s social reproduction theory and its contributions to understanding educational inequality has been relatively mixed. Critics discount the usefulness of core concepts such as cultural capital and habitus and most studies invoking these concepts have focused only on one or the other, often conflating the two, to the detriment of both. We disentangle cultural capital and habitus, and argue that taken together – in conjunction with practice and field – they hold significant explanatory potential. Moreover, we argue that these concepts can be incorporated into a scientific realist ‘structure–disposition–practice’ explanatory framework that seeks to address the misalignment between Bourdieuian relational constructs and standard positivist quantitative research methods. This reframing can help generate practical, actionable knowledge of the mechanisms underlying persistent socioeconomic disparities in educational attainment.

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.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.347
Threshold uncertainty score0.310

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.394 · 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