MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978199268 · doi:10.1080/08865655.2004.9695624

A human development index for the United States‐Mexico border

2004· article· en· W1978199268 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joan B. Anderson, Jim Gerber

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Borderlands Studies · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman Development IndexIndex (typography)Human development (humanity)Closing (real estate)Per capita incomeEconomic growthGeographyProductivityDevelopment economicsPolitical scienceSocioeconomicsRegional scienceEconomicsDemographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a Border Human Development Index, which is a modified version of the United Nations Development Program's Human Development Index, in order to compare the development levels of the U.S. counties and Mexican municipios that touch the U.S.‐Mexico Border. The paper presents the methodology used for constructing this index, along with results of the HDI's three sub‐indices of income, education and health, and the full Border HDI for 1990 and 2000. The sub‐index of health shows the smallest gap, while that of education is by far the largest both in 1990 and 2000. A key finding is the importance of the education gap because it has significant implications for an approach to closing the human development gap in the border region, and more generally between the United States and Mexico. A focused effort to increase secondary education would lead to increased productivity which would increase per capita income.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations28
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Borderlands StudiesSame topicFiscal Policy and Economic GrowthFrench-language works237,207