MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3188238482 · doi:10.1111/socf.12743

Cultivated Participation: Looking Closer at the Relationship Between Education and Participation<sup>1</sup>

2021· article· en· W3188238482 on OpenAlexaffabout
Erica T. McCollum

Bibliographic record

VenueSociological Forum · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitizen journalismSocioeconomic statusPoliticsSociologyHigher educationSocial sciencePolitical scienceEconomic growthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Researchers have taken aim at the well‐established correlation between higher education and political participation, arguing much of the relationship is spurious. This has created an ongoing debate around what role, if any, education has in supporting participation, and continued questions around what underpins this relationship. Drawing on 63 semi‐structured interviews with young Canadians who went to school in low‐, mid‐, and high‐socioeconomic areas of Vancouver, I argue we can better answer these questions if we look at the influence of higher education in terms of a trajectory instead of an isolated treatment. Within these trajectories, I identify participatory social contexts (social contexts that produce participation as a desirable and expected activity) as key mechanisms that help develop dispositions for political participation. Participatory social contexts are more available to those on a trajectory of higher education, yet the experience of higher education itself appears to be of minor importance to participation.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.448
Threshold uncertainty score0.891

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.009
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSociological ForumSame topicSocial Media and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207