MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803235928 · doi:10.1017/dem.2017.19

DECOMPOSING GAPS BETWEEN ROMA AND NON-ROMA IN ROMANIA

2018· article· en· W2803235928 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Demographic Economics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicRomani and Gypsy Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnic groupUnemploymentDemographic economicsEducational attainmentLiteracyFace (sociological concept)DemographyPsychologyPolitical scienceSociologyEconomic growthEconomicsSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract It is widely known that the Roma have been suffering persistent disadvantages. Yet, little empirical evidence exists. Using the censuses of 1977, 1992, 2002, and 2011, I provide a comprehensive overview of the past, present, and an outlook on the future of the Roma in Romania, home to a large and rapidly growing Roma community. Young Roma, in particular girls, are less likely to be attending school, indicating that lack of educational attainment is likely to persist. The Roma have worse housing conditions and face lower employment and higher unemployment levels. Amongst Roma, females are less likely to be employed than males. Oaxaca–Blinder decompositions of the ethnic and gender employment gaps reveal that the differences in employment cannot be fully explained by observables, such as age or education. Despite the seemingly dire picture, there are signs of improvement for more recent cohorts, as literacy rates have reached close to universal levels.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.588

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.329 · 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