MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205903892 · doi:10.1177/0192513x211059825

Mate Selection Behavior of GED Recipients

2022· article· en· W4205903892 on OpenAlexaff
Kate H. Choi, Brandon Wagner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Issues · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Dynamics and Relationships
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAssortative matingCredentialPsychologyOddsEducational attainmentEthnic groupDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyDemographySociologyLogistic regressionPopulationMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The General Educational Development (GED) degree is designed to be a credential equivalent to the high school diploma. However, growing evidence indicates that GED recipients have worse outcomes than high school graduates. Such findings raise the question: is the GED socially equivalent to the high school diploma? Although educational assortative mating patterns have long been used as a barometer of the social distance across educational groups, there has not been a study that has addressed this question by examining the marital sorting patterns of GED recipients. Using log-linear models, our study shows that the odds of intermarriage between GED recipients and high school graduates resemble those between GED recipients and those without a secondary degree. Racial/ethnic minorities had greater difficulty crossing the GED/high school graduate boundary when they married. Our findings detract from the purported view that the GED degree is equivalent to a traditional high school diploma.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family IssuesSame topicFamily Dynamics and RelationshipsFrench-language works237,207