Bibliographic record
Abstract
A lot has been written about the effect of family on youth decisions, especially for youth in rural areas. Families provide support and resources for youth; resources that allow them to stay or to leave, and to return to their home community in times of stress. Much of the research on families in rural areas has focused on parents; their attitudes, their levels of education, their encouragement of further education, and more generally the resources they do (or do not) have available for their children. However, most youth have at least one sibling; many have more than one. Siblings provide an important part of the context in which rural youth make decisions about their education and geographic mobility, yet we know little about the role of siblings in these decisions.This paper provides some detailed information about siblings and how a sample of youth in rural and urban Nova Scotia describe their relationships with their siblings and the impact siblings had on their life course decisions. Data are from a longitudinal survey of youth, who provided information at ages 17, 21 and 29. Detailed qualitative quotes complement the numeric survey data from these participants. Preliminary results show that 95% of the youth have siblings; two thirds have an older sibling. Just under a half have a sibling who has attended or is attending some form of post-secondary education. Thus, siblings are a rich source of information (accurate or inaccurate) about the advantages and disadvantages of various post-secondary options.Understanding the impact of siblings can help rural families and those advising rural families to better identify options for rural youth that will feed their success as well as (hopefully) the well being of their home community in the long run.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".