“<i>It's about having money, but also happiness:”</i> A qualitative investigation of how adolescents understand subjective status in themselves and others
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Understanding why adolescent subjective assessments of status matter to their psychosocial outcomes over and above objective assessments of socioeconomic status (SES) requires a better comprehension of how adolescents construct status in themselves and others. Using a qualitative approach, the goal of the current study was to better understand what factors adolescents use to assign status, and how their perceptions of this status vary according to their own SES. METHOD: Qualitative interviews were conducted with 32 adolescents from Quebec, Canada, from varied socioeconomic backgrounds. In particular, they were shown the ladder from the Subjective Social Status Scale and asked what defined scale placement in their communities. They were also asked where they would place themselves on this scale, and why. RESULTS: The importance of traditional indicators of SES such as money, educational level, and occupational prestige were underlined by almost all adolescents, but other factors (e.g., wellbeing, family life, values concerning work, other-orientation, or rule-following) were also frequently discussed. Adolescents used similar criteria in the placement of themselves and others. Contradictions often emerged, however, as adolescents' scale placement was often higher than what would be expected based on traditional SES indicators. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide a starting point for understanding why adolescents' subjective assessments of status may matter above and beyond traditional assessments of SES, and how we can better measure this construct.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".