MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7056240351

The Educational Backgrounds of Leading Scientists and Scholars

2009· other· en· W7056240351 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Education Resource Archive (University College London) · 2009
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle accelerators and beam dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)EliteHigher educationState (computer science)Period (music)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

of Key Findings Four in ten (42%) of the UK's most prestigious scientists and scholars were educated at independent schools. 40 schools, mostly independent, produced a quarter of today's Fellows of the Royal Society and British Academy. Over half (56%) of the Fellows of the Royal Society and British Academy studied at Oxford or Cambridge. Over two thirds (68%) of British Academy Fellows educated in the UK went to Oxford or Cambridge universities compared with just under half (47%) of the UK educated Fellows at the Royal Society. Cambridge University particularly dominates the Royal Society -accounting for 34% of Fellows, compared to Oxford's 13%. The school backgrounds of today's Fellows closely mirror the student intakes to Oxbridge and other elite universities in the 1960s when many entered higher education. Current independent school pupils are on average four times as likely to achieve an A* in academic GCSEs than their state school counterparts, and constitute up to a half of the highest achieving pupils in some core academic subjects at age 16. Students in independent schools account for fewer than 15% of A level entries, but twice the proportion of A grades.Independent school students account for one third or more of top grades in key subjects like Physics, Chemistry, Economics and History. Current trends in student intakes to leading research universities suggest that independent school pupils will continue to be over-represented among the next generation of leading scientists and other scholars.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score0.643

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Education Resource Archive (University College London)Same topicParticle accelerators and beam dynamicsFrench-language works237,207