Socio‐economic Status and Academic Achievement Trajectories from Childhood to Adolescence
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although a positive relationship between socio‐economic status and academic achievement is well‐established, how it varies with age is not. This article uses four data points from Canada’s National Longitudinal Study of Children and Youth (NLSCY) to examine how the academic achievement gap attributed to SES changes from childhood to adolescence (ages 7 to 15). Estimates of panel data and hierarchical linear models indicate that the gap remains fairly stable from the age of 7 to 11 years and widens at an increasing rate from the age of 11 to the age of 15 years. Theoretical arguments and policy implications surrounding this finding are discussed. Key words: SES, academic achievement, early adolescence, growth model Bien qu’on sache depuis longtemps qu’il existe un lien entre le statut socioeconomique et le rendement scolaire, il reste encore a determiner dans quelle mesure ce lien varie en fonc‐ tion de l’âge. Cet article a recours a quatre points de donnees tires de l’Enquete longitudi‐ nale nationale sur les enfants et les jeunes (ELNEJ) du Canada en vue de mesurer comment les differences dans le rendement scolaire attribuees au statut socioeconomique changent de l’enfance a l’adolescence (de 7 a 15 ans). Des estimations tirees de donnees recueillies au moyen d’un panel ainsi que des modeles hierarchiques lineaires indiquent que les diffe‐ rences demeurent relativement stables entre 7 ans et 11 ans et deviennent de plus en plus marquees entre 11 ans et 15 ans. Les auteurs font l’analyse des arguments theoriques et des incidences sur les politiques entourant cette conclusion. Mots cles : statut socioeconomique, rendement scolaire, debut de l’adolescence, modele de croissance.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it