MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981688738 · doi:10.1525/sop.2009.52.3.409

Residential Patterns across Generations of New Immigrant Groups

2009· article· en· W1981688738 on OpenAlexaffabout
Eric Fong, Feng Hou

Bibliographic record

VenueSociological Perspectives · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation Studies
Canadian institutionsStatistics CanadaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusEthnic groupMetropolitan areaImmigrationGeographyCensusContext (archaeology)SociologyPerspective (graphical)DemographySocioeconomicsDemographic economicsPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores residential patterns across generations of new immigrant groups. The discussion is situated in a multi-ethnic context. The analysis is based on data from the 2001 Canadian census and focuses on three visible minority groups in the four largest metropolitan areas of Canada. In line with the spatial assimilation perspective, the authors found that visible minority groups reside in neighborhoods where, over generations, as the proportion of whites increases, the proportions of their own group and other minority groups decline. The findings also show support that socioeconomic resources are positively related to residential integration and that each successive generation is more efficient than the previous generation in translating socioeconomic resources. However, echoing the place stratification perspective, variations in the effect of socioeconomic resources within each group and generation have been documented. Taken together, the results suggest that the factors contributing to residential integration are more complicated in a multi-ethnic context.

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)0.001
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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.315 · 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

Citations23
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSociological PerspectivesSame topicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation StudiesFrench-language works237,207