Lost in space: population growth in the American hinterlands and small cities
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
The sources of urban agglomeration and the development of the urban system have been studied extensively. Despite the pivotal role of the hinterlands in theories of the development of the urban system, little attention has been paid to the effect of urban agglomeration in a developed, mature economy on growth in the hinterlands. Therefore, this study examines how proximity to urban agglomeration affects contemporary population growth (PopGr) in hinterland U.S. counties. Proximity to urban agglomeration is measured in terms of both distances to higher tiered areas in the urban hierarchy and proximity to market potential (MP). Particular attention is paid to whether periodic changes and trends in underlying conditions (e.g. technology or transport costs) have altered PopGr patterns in the hinterlands and small urban centers. Over the period 1950–2000, we find strong negative growth effects of distances to higher tiered urban areas, with significant, but lesser effects of distance to MP. Further, the costs of distance, if anything, appear to be increasing over time, consistent with a number of recent theories stressing the effect of new technology on the spatial distribution of activity in a mature urban system.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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