MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3107998865 · doi:10.1111/tgis.12712

Modeling the geospatial dynamics of residential segregation in three Canadian cities: An agent‐based approach

2020· article· en· W3107998865 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Taylor Anderson, Aaron Leung, Suzana Dragićević, Liliana Pérez

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions in GIS · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGeospatial analysisImmigrationGeographyCensusEthnic groupEconomic geographyRegional scienceCartographySociologyPopulationDemographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Long‐term residential segregation can exacerbate social inequality and exclusion in urban populations. Existing models of segregation aim to represent and better understand drivers of segregation and assess possible segregation effects in response to incoming immigrant populations. However, these studies are not typically implemented on real geospatial data to represent the urban environment, and even less frequently compare patterns of segregation between cities. Therefore, the objective of this study is to implement an agent‐based model that simulates the decision‐making process of immigrants as they arrive and settle in three Canadian gateways for immigration, including the City of Toronto, the City of Calgary, and Metro Vancouver. The resulting simulated spatial patterns of segregation are visually compared to real data representing the location of hotspots of immigrants of various ethnic origins. The degree of segregation is measured and compared, with measures of segregation obtained from actual census data. The spatial patterns and degree of segregation are compared across the three study areas. The developed model has the potential to be used as a tool for knowledge discovery and decision‐making in the processes of city planning.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.689
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions in GISSame topicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation StudiesFrench-language works237,207