MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071652831 · doi:10.1177/10780870022184606

An Empirical Assessment of Four Perspectives on the Declining Fortunes of the African-American Male

2000· article· en· W2071652831 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
James H. Johnson, Walter C. Farrell, Jennifer A. Stoloff

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban Affairs Review · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Metropolitan areaSocial capitalInequalityTest (biology)Social mobilityDemographic economicsAfrican americanWhite (mutation)Survey data collectionHuman capitalEconomic inequalitySociologyEconomicsEconomic growthGeographySocial scienceEthnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors use data from the Los Angeles Survey of Urban Inequality to empirically test the utility of four perspectives advanced to explain the declining social and economic fortunes of the African-American male over the past quarter century: the spatial isolation hypothesis, the cultural capital/employer preference hypothesis, the search-and-destroy hypothesis, and the social capital hypothesis. They assess the utility of these hypotheses by exploring the labor market experiences of African-American males in metropolitan Los Angeles, focusing specifically on the determinants of labor force participation and comparing their experiences with those of their white and Hispanic male counterparts.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.318 · 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

Citations9
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUrban Affairs ReviewSame topicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation StudiesFrench-language works237,207