INTERGENERATIONAL MOBILITY IN TURKEY BASED ON EDUCATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of intergenerational mobility refers to the association between parents’ and their children’s socio-economic well-being. As an interest and policy area, understanding the three aspects of intergenerational transmission stands out, i) social welfare ii) equality of opportunity, and iii) economic efficiency. First, it is essential to know how resources are allocated across generations because this allocation process may influence overall social welfare defined over the entire income distribution of different generations. Secondly, intergenerational mobility may be seen as a measure of equality of opportunity. Moreover, it can be one of the ways to reduce socioeconomic inequality by promoting social justice and achieving a more equitable allocation of resources (D'Addio, 2007). Although the studies of intergenerational transmission go back to the mid-19th century (Galton, 1869), it has been started to analyze and interpreted, more recently. From the 1960s, some empirical studies on economic, social and political determinants of mobility mostly in developed countries, such as the UK, USA, Canada and Sweden (Solon, 1999, 2002; Zimmerman, 1992; Black and Devereux, 2010; Bjorklund and Salvanes, 2011), are published, but for developing countries there are few works mostly due to data constraints and structural problems such as informal and household-based economic activities (Mercan, 2012, 2020; Emran & Shilpi, 2019, Demirtaş and Torul, 2023). In this direction, this study aims to contribute scarce literature on intergenerational mobility in Turkey by using the Adult Education Survey (AES) provided by TURKSTAT. Our results indicate a strong relationship between the socioeconomic status of the family and the socioeconomic status of the child, albeit decreasing over the birth cohorts. In addition to these results, persistence in terms of intergenerational mobility is higher for females with respect to males.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".