MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767278675 · doi:10.1142/s0217590817430044

THE “MODEL MINORITY” MYTH: ASIAN AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER THE GREAT RECESSION

2017· article· en· W2767278675 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jessie X. Fan, Hua Zan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Singapore Economic Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecessionMiddle classSocioeconomic statusQuarter (Canadian coin)Educational attainmentAsian americansDemographic economicsDemographyGreat recessionEconomicsGeographyEthnic groupPolitical scienceEconomic growthSociologyLabour economicsPopulationKeynesian economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey (2003–2014) were used to both investigate trends in Asian American middle class status attainment before, during, and after the Great Recession and compare such attainment to that of non-Hispanic Whites. Using three different operational definitions of the middle class, we show that middle class size estimates during recession and post-recession were lower than pre-recession estimates for both Asian Americans and Whites. For all three periods, Asian Americans were substantially less likely to have achieved middle class status compared with Whites. The racial gap did not narrow or widen due to the Great Recession. Our analysis also found that basic demographic and socioeconomic differences explained a little over a quarter of this middle class attainment gap.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Singapore Economic ReviewSame topicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation StudiesFrench-language works237,207