MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114420595 · doi:10.1017/s0047279407001481

Neighbourhood Ethnic Concentration and Discrimination

2007· article· en· W2114420595 on OpenAlexaffabout
William Magee, Eric Fong, Rima Wilkes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Social Policy · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Refugees, and Integration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnic groupLocale (computer software)ImmigrationNeighbourhood (mathematics)Demographic economicsEthnic discriminationEthnically diverseChinese americansSociologyGeographyPsychologyDemographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate the association between the residential concentration of Chinese in Toronto and discrimination as experienced and perceived by Chinese immigrant residents. A unique aspect of this study is our focus on perceived employment discrimination. We find that Chinese immigrants living in neighbourhoods with a high concentration of other Chinese residents are more likely to perceive employment discrimination against Chinese people as a group, and are more likely to report exposure to ethnically motivated verbal assault, than are Chinese immigrants living elsewhere. Our results are consistent with studies of other populations. However, we argue that theory and policy related to ethnic concentration and discrimination should recognise that effects of ethnic concentration on discrimination are likely to vary with the ecological setting under investigation (for example, neighbourhoods versus larger areas), as well as by size of locale (city, region, or country), and the ethnic groups involved.

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)0.002
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 score0.199
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.353 · 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

Citations20
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Social PolicySame topicMigration, Refugees, and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207