MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2434070080 · doi:10.5539/res.v8n3p81

Empirical Evaluation of Social and Cultural Reproduction Theory in Acquiring Graduate Education

2016· article· en· W2434070080 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohammad Pourdian, Mohammad Hassani, Afshar Kabiri

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Capital and Networks
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReproductionCluster samplingCultural reproductionSocial capitalCultural capitalSocial reproductionPsychologyEmpirical researchPath analysis (statistics)Sample (material)PopulationData collectionAffect (linguistics)Multistage samplingSocial psychologyStatistical populationPearson product-moment correlation coefficientSociologySocial scienceStatisticsDemographyDescriptive statisticsMathematicsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>The purpose of this study is to empirically evaluate social and cultural reproduction theory in the pursuit of education. Thus, the theory of social reproduction, cultural reproduction and social capital have been utilized to develop the theoretical framework. The research type in regard to its goal is applied and in regard to data collection method is survey research. A questionnaire has been used to collect data. Population of this research covered all graduate students of West Azerbaijan province universities in the academic year 1392-1393 (n=9352, according to available statistics) among them 132 students were selected randomly as research sample through multi stage cluster sampling. To test the research hypotheses, Pearson correlation, multiple regression and path analysis technique have been employed. Empirical findings indicate that independent variables including socio-economic status, social capital and cultural capital affect academic success of students in pursuing higher education.</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 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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
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 head0.308
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European StudiesSame topicSocial Capital and NetworksFrench-language works237,207