MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2983988940 · doi:10.1108/aea-06-2019-0007

The persistent effect of socioeconomic status on education and labor market outcomes

2019· article· en· W2983988940 on OpenAlexaff
Juan A. Correa, Pablo Martín Urbano y Juan Ignacio Sánchez Gutiérrez, Miguel Lorca, Raúl Morales, Francisco Parro

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Economic Analysis · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational and Educational Inequality Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusEarningsTest (biology)OriginalityCohortDemographyDemographic economicsEconomicsPsychologyMedicineSociologySocial psychologyPopulationAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose This paper aims to study the effect of family socioeconomic status (SES) on academic and labor market outcomes. Design/methodology/approach The authors used a rich data set of administrative records for test scores, individual background and adult earnings of a cohort of agents, covering a period spanning the agents' upper-secondary education and their early years in the labor market. Findings The authors find that students with the highest SES obtained a 1.5 standard deviations higher score in the college admission test than students who had the same academic outcomes in the eighth grade test but belong to the lowest SES. Similarly, among students that obtained the same scores in the college admission test, those with the highest SES earned monthly wages 0.7 standard deviations higher than those with the lowest SES. Originality/value The findings highlight that family socioeconomic background continues to influence outcomes during individuals’ upper secondary education and early years in the labor market.

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)0.006
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations14
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Economic AnalysisSame topicIntergenerational and Educational Inequality StudiesFrench-language works237,207