MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2595419130 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.34.3.413

Time to Read: Family Resources and Educational Outcomes in Britain

2003· article· en· W2595419130 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Sin Yi Cheung, Robert Andersen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSchool Choice and Performance
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEducational attainmentAffect (linguistics)Academic achievementSocial classDevelopmental psychologyReading (process)PsychologySocial psychologyFamily lifeSociologyEconomic growthPolitical scienceSocioeconomicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the role of the family-in particular family background, family structure and social and cultural resources-in explaining educational achievement in Britain. We use extensive panel data to track the relationship between family characteristics and factors associated with educational attainment for individuals from birth to age 33. Our results show that although social class is an important predictor of academic ability and educational outcomes, cultural and social resources in the family also play an independent role. Social resources in the family have direct and lasting positive effects on academic success and also play an indirect role by affecting childhood reading habits, which in tum affect educational success. Parental cultural practices are less important to early academic success, though they are positively related to the eventual likelihood of obtaining a university degree. In contrast,- family size and structure are related to academic achievement early in life but have no direct effect on final educational outcomes. We conclude that the role of cultural and social resources in the family should not be dismissed when attempting to explain educational outcomes.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations66
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Family StudiesSame topicSchool Choice and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207