MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984940226

Qualified Equal Opportunity and Conditional Mobility: Gender Equity and Educational Attainmant in Canada

2009· preprint· en· W1984940226 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gordon Anderson, Teng Wah Leo, Robert Muelhaupt

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2009
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational and Educational Inequality Studies
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial mobilityEndowmentDifferential (mechanical device)Equal opportunityEquity (law)Opportunity structuresPoliticsDemographic economicsEconomic mobilityLevel playing fieldDominance (genetics)EconomicsPolitical scienceLabour economicsPublic economicsSociologyEconomic growthMicroeconomicsSocial science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interest in Economic and Social Mobility is rooted in a societal aspiration for equal opportunity. The aspiration is based upon an Egalitarian Political Philosophy which approves of differential outcomes when they are the consequence of differential effort and disapproves of differential outcomes when they are the consequence of differential circumstance and results in "level playing field" policies. In the absence of any other imperative, such policies would result in increased upward mobility for the poorly endowed and increased downward mobility for the richly endowed. Adding a Utilitarian imperative (the inheriting generation should not be made worse off in a first order dominance sense) to societal objectives results in a "Qualified Equal Opportunity or Conditional Mobility" policy which calls for rethinking the approach to mobility measurement. Techniques for evaluating the impact of such policies (both in terms of generational regressions and transition matrices) are proposed and exemplified in considering the issue of Gender Equity in educational attainment in Canada over the last 20 years. The evidence is that women have more than caught up with men and that, in closing the gap, it is the poorly endowed women who have made the most progress in terms of mobility whilst the mobility of males has remained relatively constant across the endowment spectrum consistent with a Qualified Equal Opportunity program.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.349
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.207
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicIntergenerational and Educational Inequality StudiesFrench-language works237,207