Infusing fundamental cause theory with features of Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of symbolic power
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The theory of fundamental causes is one of the more influential attempts to provide a theoretical infrastructure for the strong associations between indicators of socioeconomic status (education, income, occupation) and health. It maintains that people of higher socioeconomic status have greater access to flexible resources such as money, knowledge, prestige, power, and beneficial social connections that they can use to reduce their risks of morbidity and mortality and minimize the consequences of disease once it occurs. However, several key aspects of the theory remain underspecified, compromising its ability to provide truly compelling explanations for socioeconomic health inequalities. In particular, socioeconomic status is an assembly of indicators that do not necessarily cohere in a straightforward way, the flexible resources that disproportionately accrue to higher status people are not clearly defined, and the distinction between socioeconomic status and resources is ambiguous. I attempt to address these definitional issues by infusing fundamental cause theory with features of a well-known theory of socioeconomic stratification in the sociological literature-Pierre Bourdieu's theory of symbolic power.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".