A study on the distribution of family socio-economic resources on children’s educational opportunities based on linear programming modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
conversion. From the perspective of the family system as a provider of educational resources, the input of various forms of resources into the family environment either helps parents to teach their children, helps them to learn, or is detrimental to the healthy growth of their children. In this paper, based on the nonlinear model of the static resource-opportunity allocation problem study, the objective constraints are added to establish a linear programming model. The column enumeration method is used to solve the linear programming, while the sensitivity of the linear programming is analyzed by pairwise test. On the basis of the random initial solution, a multilayer transportation algorithm is designed as the initial solution to further reduce the time of enumerating columns and complete the construction of the solution framework for the resource-opportunity allocation problem. The model is used to solve the problem of the distribution of socio-economic resources to educational opportunities between “two-child” and “one-child” families. The results show that the socio-economic resources of different families have different opportunities for children’s education, and there are significant differences between different types of “two-child” families in the three aspects of parent-child relationship satisfaction, feelings of parenting, and interpersonal evaluation of the child, with the F-values of 5.265, 4.859, and 5.136, respectively, with a p<0.01. The “last-child advantage” in children's education is related to the number of years of education of the fathers. In the 1949-1969 generation, the average number of years of education of the fathers was only 6.763, while in the 1970-1990 generation, the average number of years of education of the fathers increased to 8.685, and the cultural level of the family as a whole improved significantly, and the mechanism of resource constraints on the cultural level of the family began to take effect. The resource constraint mechanism at the cultural level is beginning to take effect.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".