Does Economic Inequality Account for Cross-Country Discrepancies in Relative Social Mobility: An Empirical Investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper makes use of the Markov Switching model and the K-Means Cluster analysis to estimate the transition probabilities of social mobility and to analyze the impact of social inequalities on intergenerational social mobility. The dataset is a sample of 44 countries and comprises the 2018 social mobility indices, and the 2018 or latest income inequality measures. The data are collected from the OECD Income and Wealth Distribution Databases, and from the world economic forum. It was found that the likelihood of moving upward or downward the social ladder is minimal in both developed and emerging countries. In addition, the paper found that the hypothesis according to which high-income countries have a higher relative social mobility is not necessarily true. The United States, a high-income country, was found to have a lower social mobility, similar to that of Turkey and South Africa. Furthermore, it was found that when poverty decreases, intergenerational social mobility increases in both lower and higher mobility countries. Policies that promote equality of opportunities at all stages of life are therefore recommended to improve intergenerational social mobility.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".