Signals, Educational Decision-Making, and Inequality
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
Abstract We propose a model of educational decision-making based on rational choice theory in which students use signals about academic ability to make inference about the costs and benefits of different educational options. Our model is simple, extends ideas from previous models, and has testable implications. We test our model using data on Danish monozygotic twins and find that (i) students who receive a positive signal about their academic ability have a higher likelihood of enrolling in and completing a college-bound track compared with those who do not; (ii) the effect of the signal is stronger for students from low socio-economic status (SES) backgrounds than for those from high-SES ones; and (iii) for low-SES students the effect is stronger on enrolment than on completion. Our results suggest that signals about academic ability affect educational decisions in general; they are more important for students who do not have a family ‘push’ to avoid downward social mobility; and they affect educational inequality by making low-SES students too optimistic about their likelihood of completing the college-bound track.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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