MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3140948193 · doi:10.1257/app.20210807

Affirmative Action and Precollege Human Capital

2023· article· en· W3140948193 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Economic Journal Applied Economics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration and Labor Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersConnaught FundPrinceton UniversityPurdue UniversityCollegio Carlo AlbertoTexas Education AgencyEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentSpencer FoundationAndrew W. Mellon FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAffirmative actionHuman capitalAttendanceInvestment (military)Test (biology)Standardized testSupreme courtDemographic economicsAction (physics)Political scienceCapital (architecture)EconomicsPsychologyLawMathematics educationEconomic growthHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Though racial affirmative action (AA) policies are widespread in college admissions, evidence on their effects before college is limited. We study a US Supreme Court ruling that reinstated AA in three states. Using nationwide SAT data, we separately identify positive effects of AA for Whites and underrepresented minorities. Using Texas administrative data, we find that AA narrowed racial gaps in grades, attendance, and college applications. Improvements in minorities' precollege human capital and college applications are concentrated in the top half of the test score distribution among the students for whom the policy most increases the returns to human capital investment.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.672
Threshold uncertainty score0.799

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.275 · 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