MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009528066 · doi:10.3386/w26819

Black-Friendly Businesses in Cities During the Civil Rights Era

2020· preprint· en· W3009528066 on OpenAlexaff
Maggie Jones, Trevon D. Logan, David Rosé, Lisa Cook

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Bureau of Economic Research · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation Studies
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCivil rightsBusinessPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantitative analysis of Black business districts and evidence on the magnitude of social change leading up to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in particular as it relates to the accessibility of public accommodations, is limited. We combine newly digitized data on the precise geocoded location of nearly 6, 000 Green Book establishments—public accommodations that were friendly towards African American clientele—across major urban areas with existing and new sources of data on social change to understand the dynamics of Black-friendly businesses within cities during the middle of the twentieth century. In doing so, we document a new set of facts. First, we show that the location and growth of Green Book establishments responded to economic forces. Second, we show that there was a large increase in the number of Green Book establishments in cities between 1939 and 1955. Third, for Green Book establishments located in cities for which the Home Owner’s Loan Corporation (HOLC) drew residential security maps, the vast majority (nearly 70 percent) were located in the lowest-grade, redlined neighborhoods. And finally, we show that 1950s urban renewal projects were related to the contraction of non-discriminatory businesses. Collectively, these facts suggest that more research on Black-owned and Black-friendly businesses is needed to fully understand the economics of urban change in the twentieth century.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.711
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.246
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNational Bureau of Economic ResearchSame topicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation StudiesFrench-language works237,207