Similar gaps, different paths? Comparing racial inequalities among BA holders in Brazil and the United States
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
In this article, we compare how racial inequalities are shaped by school-to-work transitions among bachelor’s degree (BA) holders in Brazil and the United States. Our findings reveal how distinct paths linking higher education and the job market can drive similar patterns of Black–White earnings gaps. While the distribution across fields of study matters more for racial earnings inequality in Brazil, differential returns to the same field and occupations are a stronger determinant in the United States. We also find that linked closure, that is, the exclusion of Black BA holders from occupations with high levels of linkage to the labor market, is the predominant mechanism in the United States, while a mix between linked closure and what we term unlinked closure, that is, the exclusion of Black BA holders from occupations that have weak linkages to fields of study, is more important in Brazil. By identifying variations in mechanisms leading to racial inequality, this article contributes to debates in comparative race relations and stratification.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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