MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767016192 · doi:10.1177/0020715217735362

Early home literacy and adolescents’ online reading behavior in comparative perspective

2017· article· en· W2767016192 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Natascha Notten, Birgit Becker

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Comparative Sociology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)Association (psychology)Perspective (graphical)LiteracyReproductionCultural capitalPsychologySocial capitalDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologySociologyPolitical scienceSocial scienceBiologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Online reading behavior can be regarded as a 'new' form of cultural capital in today's digital world. However, it is unclear whether 'traditional' mechanisms of cultural and social reproduction are also found in this domain, and whether they manifest uniformly across countries at different stages of development. This article analyzes whether the early home literacy environment has an impact on informational online reading behavior among adolescents and whether this association varies between countries with different levels of digitalization and educational expansion. Data from the 2009 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) were used for the empirical analyses. The results of regression models with country-fixed effects indicate a positive association between literacy activities in early childhood and informational online reading at age 15. This association was quite stable across countries. These findings are discussed in light of cultural and social reproduction theory and digital divide research.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.384 · 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

Citations30
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Comparative SociologySame topicSocial Media and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207