Do you have to be mobile to be socially mobile? Adult learners miss out again!
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper reports on a preliminary review of institutional data against hot and cold spot areas identified in the recent Social Mobility Index (SMI) (Social Mobility Commission, 2016). The review sought to explore the extent to which Open University (OU) students from the lowest quintiles of the POLAR3 classification were represented in the SMI cold spot areas. Based on the premise that geographic mobility is a challenge for many disadvantaged students (Reay et al., 2001), a link between OU students from the lowest quintiles (one and two) and the cold spots may suggest that the opportunities open to them upon completion of their degree are limited. This potentially has implications for all HE providers if the HE sector is serious about tackling the dramatic decline in part-time student numbers over recent years (Butcher, 2015). \n \n<br></br><br></br>The review found that in the bottom 10 cold spot areas POLAR3 classification for OU students was predominantly within quintiles one or two and in the top 10 hot spots, quintiles four and five. Drawing on literature around the challenges for disadvantaged students, including mature and part-time, the implications of this were subsequently explored through a case study of the industrial town of Corby in the East Midlands area of England.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".