Educational homogamy, values, activities, and inequality: an intergenerational perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Educational homogamy, defined as individuals with similar educational backgrounds who marry or form relationships, is increasingly identified with rising levels of inequality. Bourdieu’s concepts of field of forces and field of struggles are used to examine intergenerational educational homogamy dynamics. Through correspondence analyses with 28 years of the longitudinal data from Paths on Life’s Way Project, this study determined the interdependence of educational homogamy of two generations – grandparents (Generation One) and parents (Generation Two) – on the educational values parents hold for their children (Generation Three) – and the subsequent educational activities in which their children engage. Findings reveal that despite the intact nature of the field of forces among Generation One and Generation Two educational homogamy groups, most values held for and activities undertaken by Generation Three are not specific to homogamy groups. One important exception stands out: values held toward university attendance by Generation Two for their children (Generation Three) distinguishes the homogamy group with high levels of education from the group with low educational levels. This field of forces difference suggests the presence of accumulated capital across generations that manifests itself in values toward university study with long term implications for future life chances.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".