MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056118104 · doi:10.1177/0160017605278998

High-Poverty Nonmetropolitan Counties in America: Can Economic Development Help?

2005· article· en· W2056118104 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Regional Science Review · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicRegional Economics and Spatial Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPovertyCensusHuman capitalBasic needsEconomicsDevelopment economicsEconomic growthDemographic economicsPopulationSociologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite significant poverty reductions in nonmetropolitan America during the 1990s, Census 2000 reports that hundreds of counties still possess high poverty rates. They have not only populations that are disproportionately minority, lack education, and live in single-parent households, but also weak job growth and low levels of labor force participation. To assess the potential antipoverty benefits of economic development in high-poverty counties, the authors compare their poverty-generating process with that of remaining nonmetropolitan counties. A primary finding is employment growth reduces poverty more in high-poverty counties. Likewise, completion of high school and obtaining an associate degree reduce poverty more in these counties. These patterns also hold for counties with persistently high poverty across decades. Thus, the authors are guardedly optimistic that high-poverty counties, even those where poverty has been persistent, will experience reduced poverty if economic development policies successfully stimulate job growth and increase human capital.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.227 · 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