MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955018254 · doi:10.1073/pnas.1814688116

Americans overestimate the intergenerational persistence in income ranks

2019· article· en· W2955018254 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Siwei Cheng, Fangqi Wen

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational and Educational Inequality Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYork UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsOpenness to experienceSocial mobilitySocioeconomic statusPersistence (discontinuity)Economic inequalityDemographic economicsInequalityPoliticsPerceptionPublic policyPopulationSurvey data collectionSociologyEconomicsDevelopment economicsPolitical scienceEconomic growthPsychologySocial psychologyDemographySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Significance Intergenerational mobility indicates the openness within a society. The question of how Americans think about socioeconomic mobility prospects is drawing growing attention from scholars and policy makers. Our study proposes a survey instrument that connects the empirical literature on patterns of mobility with the literature on the public perceptions of mobility. With large-scale, population-representative data, we show that Americans overestimate the intergenerational persistence in income ranks. That is, they tend to see greater inequality of economic prospects between children from rich and poor families. These results highlight the need for policy and political solutions that seriously engage with Americans’ concerns about the equality of opportunity in the society.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations42
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicIntergenerational and Educational Inequality StudiesFrench-language works237,207