MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384559080 · doi:10.1002/job.2730

Early family socioeconomic status and later leadership role occupancy: A multisource lifespan study

2023· article· en· W4384559080 on OpenAlexafffund
Julian Barling, Steve Granger, Julie G. Weatherhead, Nick Turner, Shani Pupco

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Organizational Behavior · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Abilities and Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryConcordia UniversityQueen's University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversity College London
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusPrivilege (computing)PsychologyOccupancyDemographyCohortDevelopmental psychologyMedicineSociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary We investigate the indirect effects of socioeconomic status, both at birth and at age 5, on the likelihood of holding a formal leadership position 26 years later via two sequential mechanisms: children's self‐control at age 10 and adolescents' psychological well‐being at age 16. We test this model using multisource data from the British Cohort Study, an ongoing research project studying individuals born in England, Scotland, and Wales in the week of April 5–11, 1970. The data were collected at five different time points, from birth through early adulthood. Results show that the cumulative effects of early socioeconomic status predict children's self‐control at age 10, and self‐control in turn predicts a higher likelihood of leadership role occupancy at age 26 via psychological well‐being at age 16. The findings of the current study illustrate how a range of individual and family factors measured across the lifespan predict leadership role occupancy, with implications for better understanding how socioeconomic adversity and privilege enhance individuals' likelihood of becoming leaders early in their careers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Organizational BehaviorSame topicCognitive Abilities and TestingFrench-language works237,207