Social Mobility and Education Gaps in the Four Major Anglophone Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This summary presents the latest international research findings on social mobility, educational achievement, and other key characteristics of the four major Anglophone countries - the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and Australia. The report, which highlights some of the key findings to be presented at a London summit jointly sponsored by the Sutton Trust and Carnegie of New York, is the latest in a continuing line of work investigating international comparisons of mobility.In 2005, a Sutton Trust report catapulted the issue of Britain's low social mobility into mainstream public debate in the country. It highlighted that the chances of climbing (or dropping down) the income ladder had declined for today's adults compared with those from a generation before, and that Britain together with the US has the lowest social mobility of any advanced country for which there is data. In 2008 the Trust jointly organised with Carnegie of New York a summit exploring the factors behind low mobility in the US and UK.The 2012 Sutton-Carnegie summit is a follow-up to the 2008 meeting, widening the scope of the study to compare and contrast the UK and US with Canada and Australia, two countries which have high mobility rates by international standards. Many of the key findings come from a new book Parents to Children published to coincide with the summit by the US based Russell Sage Foundation, following a partnership with the Sutton Trust and the Pew Trusts, also based in the US. The work is motivated by profound concerns that the educational performance and life chances of less privileged children continues to lag behind their more advantaged peers. The hope is that looking at international comparisons and the differences between countries will yield some lessons to improve 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".