A comparison of two methods for classifying trajectories: a case study on neighborhood poverty at the intra-metropolitan level in Montreal
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years several studies have examined changes in the distribution of poverty in the North American cities, with most empirical work assessing neighborhood change between two time points. This paper aims to make a methodological contribution to the study of neighborhood change, by comparing two classification methods, one classical (k-means clustering) the other more novel (Latent Class Growth Modelling; LCGM) to identify groups of census tracts having followed similar trajectories of poverty in the Montreal metropolitan area, Canada. Here trajectories of poverty are measured over a twenty-year period, using five time points. The relative performance of the LCGM vs. the k-means clustering was assessed using a series of multinomial logistic regressions examining how different socioeconomic variables were associated with the trajectories of poverty. Results showed that k-means and LCGM identified similar groups of census tracts characterized by ascending, descending, or stable poverty levels throughout the period, with LGCM only marginally outperforming k-means clustering.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it