The Effect of Economic Standing, Individual Preferences, and Co-ethnic Resources on Immigrant Residential Clustering <sup/>
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
Our study examines how immigrants cluster in co-ethnic neighborhoods. We systematically explore the effects of three factors on the co-ethnic clustering of immigrants: economic resources, co-ethnic preferences, and the use of co-ethnic information sources. The study is based on a unique data set that provides rarely available rich information on housing search collected in Toronto in 2006. Focusing on Asian Indians and Chinese immigrants, the results clearly suggest that of all preferences, only co-ethnic preference is related to co-ethnic clustering of the two groups when income and use of co-ethnic resources are taken into consideration, and that levels of co-ethnic clustering are not related to the economic resources of immigrants. The findings also reveal that some effects are distinctive to specific groups. Although immigrants use various co-ethnic resources to obtain housing information, only the use of co-ethnic real estate agents is significant, and that only for the clustering of Chinese, not for Asian Indians.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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