Complexity in Employment and Coresidential Trajectories Among (Dis)Advantaged Social\n Groups in Chile
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent institutional and cultural changes have allowed individuals to gradually (but persistently) follow more complex, less uniform, and less predictable work and family patterns than the patterns often assumed to be the norm in Western settings. However, we identify important gaps in this literature: (i) a persistent focus on high-income countries in Western Europe and North America, (ii) an emphasis on narrowed periods of adulthood, and (iii) a disregard for coresidential histories when analyzing the family domain. In this paper, we aim to address these shortcomings in two ways. First, we identify lifetime employment and coresidential trajectories of individuals living currently in Santiago, Chile, born between 1944 and 1954—a cohort that faced several political, economic, and cultural changes across their lives. Second, we explore how gender and socioeconomic disadvantages are associated with individuals' life trajectories. We conduct a multichannel sequence analysis of a comprehensive life history dataset and find that about a quarter of the sample (27.2%) follows a modal pattern of continuous formal full-time employment and coresidence with a partner and children. The remaining proportion of individuals follow more complex, unstable, and interrupted patterns, which vary in their levels of work attachment, work informality, solo parenthood, and intergenerational households. Our findings question the idea that socially advantaged individuals opt for more complex life courses and instead confirm the association between socially disadvantaged individuals, particularly women and those lower educated, and complex trajectories. Rather than deliberate individualistic choices, life course instability appears as an additional layer of social disadvantage.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".