MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Choosing a Job: Who Influences You the Most, Parents or Friends?

2025· book-chapter· en· W4407143965 on OpenAlexaff
Pablo De la Vega Suárez, Juan Prieto Rodríguez, Juan Gabriel Rodríguez

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotional Intelligence and Performance
Canadian institutionsNexen (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This chapter examines the relative influence of parents (vertical channel) and friends (horizontal channel) when deciding between employment in the public or private sector. Using a novel database and applying network analysis, the influence of peers is first measured. Next, the peer effect is compared with the impact of parental background on individual preferences. For the private sector, findings indicate that the influence (marginal effect) of friends is greater than that of parents. The opposite is observed for the public sector. However, in the case of public sector employment, the overall effect of the horizontal channel may surpass the vertical channel, as individuals typically have two parents but may have many friends. Additionally, it is found that both parents and friends exert a greater influence on women than on men.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.836
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.003

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.292 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEmotional Intelligence and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207