A Latin-American Parents' Group Participates in their Children's Schooling: Parent Involvement Reconsidered
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In accord with [Bourdieu] (1986; see also Lareau, 1989), we construe 'cultural capital' as those dispositions (habitus) and capabilities that establish a person of a particular background and social stratum in a set of social relations; through such relationships, he or she produces and reproduces according to a socially constructed position. In our previous work with Latin-American families, we have found there is often a disparity of esteem between the cultural capital of the Latino families and that (implicitly) required by the school. Teachers' assessment of 'parental support' was found to be highly culture bound and focused on specific models of collaboration ([Bernhard, Freire], Torres, and Nirdosh, 1998). Yet parents' actions, including the advice and guidance given to their children, are based on their own culturally bound view of the educational system. One may call this a situation of mismatch in skills and views, but in fact 'mismatch' is an ongoing aspect of social subordination. There is an undercutting of parents' abilities to positively affect their children's outcomes. We argue that there is some generality in Lareau's (1989) findings. The working-class children receive a 'generic' educational experience; their families' cultural capital is nullified, constructed as ineffective by the educational system. Supporting such a general hypothesis, as applied to particular ethno-racial groups, are disturbing reports about school performance for some immigrant and ethnic groups (Bernhard and Freire, 1996; Bernhard, Freire, et al., 1998; Brown,
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".