Towards Improving Surveys of Living Arrangements among Poor African Americans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines a mismatch between the surveys used to study U.S. household composition and the dynamics of living arrangements prevailing among many lowincome African Americans. Mounting survey findings suggest that many low-income African Americans engage in a series of short cohabitations resulting in children with a succession of partners. Ethnographic data suggest these behaviors may be based within a relationship paradigm that needs to be understood on its own terms. Because of the tenuous nature of these relationships, we refer to this paradigm as transient domesticity. An original analysis of partnership and child custody statuses using the 2001 Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) presented provides an indication of the extent of transient domesticity among low-income African Americans. Multivariate analysis suggests that transient domesticity or a paradigm that results in similar characteristics is more common among low income and African American adults and not unique to low-income African Americans. Lowincome African Americans as compared to higher-income whites and other subpopulations were much less likely to be married, although most of them reported they were single as opposed to cohabiting. The majority (60%) of low-income African American females age 20-44 were single parenting. The discussion presents recommendations for improving the measurement of living arrangements that may provide greater insight into transient domesticity. The discussion also examines possible improvements to our conceptualization of transient domesticity.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".