Striking a Blow for Unity? Race and Economics in the 2010 New Orleans Mayoral Election
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 2010 MAYORAL ELECTION IN NEW ORLEANS confounded pundits and analysts alike. Few anticipated, as the election campaign began, that New Orleans was on the brink of electing its first White mayor in a generation or that the eventual winner, Mitch Landrieu, would pass the 50 percent threshold required to win outright at the primary election stage, avoiding a potentially divisive general election runoff. Landrieu declared that in voting overwhelmingly for him, the “people of the city of New Orleans” had decided to “strike a blow for unity.”1 James Carville, with characteristic hyperbole, declared the conjunction of the Saints’ Superbowl win and the mayoral election outcome “the city’s best two days since the Battle of New Orleans in 1815” and proclaimed a “unity of spirit and purpose unlike any time in our history.”2 This apparent unity presents a challenge to our understanding of voting behavior in majority-minority cities. New Orleans voters of both races voted overwhelmingly for Landrieu, with little evidence of racially polarized voting or White strategic accommodation. Landrieu’s 2010 voting coalition was apparently cross-class and cross-racial in nature. Newspaper accounts suggest a substantial disempowering effect on the Black community, producing exceptionally low turnout among Black voters. But this also registers a challenge to our understanding of Black urban voting behavior, undercutting the expectation that intergroup competition, or the availability of an in-group candidate, spurs political participation.3
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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