MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404220282 · doi:10.1111/josi.12650

What will my life be like when I am 25? How do children's social class contexts predict their imagined and actual futures?

2024· article· en· W4404220282 on OpenAlex
Kristin Laurin, Holly R. Engstrom

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Social Issues · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Education and Societal Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFutures contractClass (philosophy)Social classPsychologyLife chancesSociologySocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyEconomicsComputer scienceFinancial economicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Children use school as a way to imagine and strive toward their futures. We analyzed thousands of essays written by children in Britain in the late 1960s about what their lives would be like as adults. We used a bottom‐up approach to explore naturally occurring topics in these essays and tested how these topics varied with children's social class context and their adult outcomes. Higher education was the most prevalent topic in these children's essays; children whose fathers—and maternal grandfathers—had higher‐status occupations were especially likely to write about this, as well as about interests in teaching, medicine, and the military. Children in lower class contexts were especially likely to write about making money, but also about family and daily responsibilities. We further found that—controlling for family background—children who wrote more about higher education and less about money‐making tended to achieve education, status, and income.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.368
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.297 · 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