The AMI's Four Quadrants Explained: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4

TL;DR

The AMI places countries on a 2D grid: Prevalence (P) horizontal, Response Quality (R) vertical. Four quadrants result from splitting both axes. Q1 (top-left, low P high R) is best in class; Q2 (top-right, high P high R) is currently empty; Q3 (bottom-right, high P low R) is the crisis zone; Q4 (bottom-left, low P low R) is probably not looking. The empty Q2 is itself a significant finding.

The quadrant grid

The two AMI axes (P and R) split the country space into four quadrants:

R high (strong response)

|

Q1 | Q2

Best in class | Aware and fighting it

(7) | (0 — empty)

|

P low ─────────────┼──────────────── P high

|

Q4 | Q3

Probably not looking | Crisis zone

(20) | (12)

|

R low (weak response)

Q1 — Best in class

Low Prevalence and strong Response. The desirable state. Countries in Q1:

Three Anglophone leaders (Australia, UK, Ireland) anchor the top of Q1 with very strong R-Scores driven by specific contract cheating legislation. Canada, New Zealand, Netherlands, and the US complete the quadrant.

The US sits at the most marginal Q1 position — a small Prevalence increase would move it to Q2.

Q2 — Aware and fighting it

High Prevalence and strong Response. Currently empty.

The empty Q2 is itself a significant finding. The interpretation: countries that have built strong response systems have brought prevalence down before reaching Q2; countries with high prevalence have not yet built strong responses. The transition from Q3 to Q1 has not historically passed through Q2 — countries that improve typically reduce prevalence at the same time as building response infrastructure.

The US is the most likely candidate to first appear in Q2 in a future version if its detected prevalence rises.

Q3 — Crisis zone

High Prevalence and weak Response. The primary target for intervention.

Twelve countries. The list is led by China (very high P, moderate R) and includes a mix of countries with very high demand-signal driven scores (Colombia, Argentina, Greece) and countries with multi-dimension elevated scores (China, Pakistan, Egypt, Iran).

Norway is the methodology anomaly within Q3 — its Q3 placement reflects Google Trends signal interpretation rather than substantive student-misconduct evidence.

Q4 — Probably not looking

Low or moderate Prevalence with weak Response. The largest quadrant.

Twenty countries including: Russia, Italy, France, Germany, India, Brazil, Vietnam, Spain, Malaysia, Kenya, Indonesia, Sweden, South Korea, Japan, Ukraine, Turkey, Nigeria, South Africa, Philippines, Singapore.

The Q4 diagnosis is: the country's apparent Prevalence is low or moderate, but the Response Quality is weak. The interpretation is that low apparent prevalence likely reflects under-detection rather than genuinely low misconduct.

Two patterns within Q4:

Q4 borderline-Q1

Singapore (P=15.34, R=47.5) and Sweden (P=37.24, R=45.0) sit close to the Q1 threshold. Modest R-Score improvements would shift them to Q1.

Q4 deep

Kenya (R=11.5) and Nigeria (R=12.5) sit in the deep Q4 region with very low Response. The "Probably not looking" diagnosis applies strongly.

Quadrant boundaries

The quadrant thresholds are documented in the methodology. They are calibrated to:

• Make Q1 reflect genuinely strong institutional response combined with low Prevalence
• Make Q3 reflect genuinely concerning combinations of high Prevalence and weak Response
• Make Q4 capture countries where the AMI methodology assesses under-detection

The thresholds are not arbitrary — they are set with reference to the dimension-score distributions and historical case-study patterns.

Why the four-quadrant structure

Two-axis indices with quadrant categorisation have a long history in policy analysis. The structure:

• Communicates the joint Prevalence-Response dynamic in a single visual
• Identifies action priorities (Q3 for intervention, Q4 for measurement improvement)
• Allows trend analysis (countries can be tracked moving between quadrants)
• Mirrors successful indices including the Corruption Perceptions Index complement framework

How quadrants might change

Future AMI versions may produce different quadrant placements:

• Methodology improvements may reduce Norway's Prevalence score, moving it from Q3 toward Q4
• New legislation (e.g. EU-coordinated essay mill bans) may move European Q3/Q4 countries upward
• Expanded country coverage will produce new scores within the rescaled framework
• The empty Q2 may eventually fill as some countries develop strong responses to acknowledged high prevalence

Sources

• AMI v1.5 methodology document
• Quadrant threshold documentation

Full methodology | Download dataset

Related

Read the full methodology