Southern Distinctiveness over Time, 1972-2000
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scholars have long been interested in the cultural differences between the southern United States and the rest of the nation. In this study we update and extend earlier work in this area by comparing and tracking the responses of southerners and non-southerners to over 75 questions from the 1972-2000 cumulative General Social Surveys. The analyses generate four conclusions. First, the attitudes and behaviors of southerners are more conservative than those of non-southerners in many areas, including race, gender, religion, sex, social capital, and tolerance. Second, the magnitude of these regional differences remains about the same regardless of whether we compare all southerners and non-southerners or just white southerners and non-southerners. This suggests that Southern culture is not just a “white” southern culture as many scholars have argued in the past. Third, the differences between southerners and non-southerners persist, although often to a lesser degree, after controlling for structural variables such as education, income, and urbanity. The implication is that southern distinctiveness is a product of both deep-seeded cultural differences and structural differences between regions. Fourth, there is very little evidence that regional differences have declined over the past quarter century, challenging those who contend that southern culture is in retreat.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".