MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3190997308 · doi:10.1177/0308518x211035410

The relationship between historical redlining and Census Bureau Community Resilience Estimates in Columbus, Ohio

2021· article· en· W3190997308 on OpenAlexaff
Lila Asher

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Planning A Economy and Space · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCensusEquity (law)Community resiliencePopulationGeographyCorporate governanceResilience (materials science)Work (physics)Psychological resilienceDemographic economicsSociologyPolitical scienceDemographyBusinessLawPsychologyEconomicsSocial psychologyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Redlining refers to the officially sanctioned practice of denying mortgage loans in some areas in order to racially discriminate against Black people and other people of colour. Recent studies have shown the persistent impacts of redlining on health risks in effected neighbourhoods. This study contributes to that growing body of work by analysing the relationship between the category that neighbourhoods were assigned on redlining maps and the percentage of the population with 3+ risk factors as defined by the Census Bureau's Community Resilience Estimates. The areas given the lowest redlining grade of D are significantly different than those given the grades of A or B and the areas not graded at the time. This result supports the argument that historical governance and planning decisions do not stay in the past and planners must work to rectify equity issues lest we be complicit in this pattern of racial discrimination.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and Planning A Economy and SpaceSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207