MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042684843 · doi:10.1080/08865655.2008.9695696

Economic informality on the U.S.‐Mexican border: A (re)view from South Texas

2008· article· en· W2042684843 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael J. Pisani, Chad Richardson, J. Michael Patrick

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Borderlands Studies · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicTaxation and Compliance Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormalityDocumentationPossession (linguistics)EarningsWork (physics)Graduation (instrument)SociologyConceptual frameworkPolitical scienceAgency (philosophy)Economic growthEconomicsSocial scienceAccountingLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper, we review and extend previous work on U.S.‐Mexico border economic informality with a special focus on the South Texas borderlands. Specifically, we offer three conceptual models of economic informality relevant to South Texas: 1) the informal marketplace at the border; 2) the confluence of (in)formality through the possession of different forms of personal documentation including the relationship between earnings and individual documentation; and 3) the graduation of informality to formality as informal firms mature (and grow) over time. Each of these models is supported with fieldwork, extended interviews, and case studies from the region. We conclude with a call for further research initiatives based upon the conceptual models proposed and offer methodological suggestions in the conduct of borderlands research on economic informality. Notes Pisani is Professor of International Business at Central Michigan University. Richardson is Professor of Sociology at University of Texas‐Pan American. Patrick is Community Resource and Economic Development Specialist in the Cooperative Extension Service at New Mexico State University.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.279
Threshold uncertainty score0.524

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations22
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Borderlands StudiesSame topicTaxation and Compliance StudiesFrench-language works237,207