“We are a family that works with our hands” or uterus: An exploration of first-generation female university students’ academic journey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Working-class children are not as likely to obtain higher education, and the preeminent factor is their parents’ level of education. Thirty percent of all Canadian students are first-generation and are defined as students whose parents did not complete a four-year university degree. First-generation students (FGSs) who are female tend to be researched separately but with little focus on the intersections of class and gender, making this topic ripe for research. There is a gap in the literature regarding FGS’s narratives from a class-based perspective that examines the connection between family history and academic decision-making. The barriers first-generation female students (FGFSs) face are unique, intersecting with low socioeconomic status, race and gender. To address these barriers is to alleviate economic inequality and interrupt intergenerational poverty. This qualitative study explored the academic journey of six FGFSs using focus groups and photo-elicitation interviews combined with an autoethnographic voice. This research addresses the following question: How do FGFSs experience their journey to and through higher education? Using critical feminist theory and Bourdieu’s concept of habitus, I analyze the challenges, intersecting complexities, and achievements of FGFSs. This study aims to describe FGFS’s academic journeys, generates and recounts their lived experiences and expand understanding and interpretation of this intersectional and heterogeneous population. This knowledge is valuable for childhood educators, teachers, guidance counsellors, professors, parents, and FGS programs to ensure equitable support and opportunities for all children. Unaddressed, girls from working-class homes can be set up for a future of precarious work, limiting personal potential and repeating a generational cycle of low socioeconomic status.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".