Defying Expectations: Can We Identify Neighbourhoods with “Other Than Expected” Developmental Outcomes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectivesTo contribute to the evidence on the association between neighbourhood-level child development in Kindergarten and neighbourhood SES, our objective was to quantify the sociodemographic and child development characteristics of the neighbourhoods that “defy expectations”: high SES neighbourhoods with much-worse-than-expected child outcomes, and low SES neighbourhoods with much-better-than-expected child outcomes. ApproachUsing exploratory and model-based Latent Profile Analysis (LPA), we identified homogenous profile groups of 2038 customized Canadian neighbourhoods using ten SES indicators. We identified the most parsimonious number of profile groups and validated and characterized the derived groups of neighbourhoods using neighbourhood and aggregated child characteristics. Next, as our outcome, we created quartile groups for developmental vulnerability risk, measured with the Early Development Instrument (EDI), to match the number of derived neighbourhood profile groups. Last, we used contingency table analysis to identify neighbourhoods that defy expectations, and then characterized these neighbourhoods using descriptive statistics and correlational analysis. ResultsThe LPA identified four neighbourhood SES groups which we labelled “Low” (31.6%), “Low-moderate” (12.7%), “High-moderate” (38.4%) and “High” (17.4%). These four SES groups were cross-tabulated with quartile groups of EDI vulnerability risk. Inspection of the resulting 4-by-4 contingency table showed that within the “Low” SES profile group 57 (8.9%) neighbourhoods had much-better-than-expected developmental vulnerability risk. Conversely, within the “High” SES profile group, 12 (3.4%) neighbourhood had much-worse-than-expected developmental vulnerability risk. Additionally, these analyses identified large provincial differences in the proportion of neighbourhoods that defy expectation. In 12 provinces and territories in the study, the proportion of neighbourhoods that defied expectations within each province ranged from zero to 50%. ConclusionThe identification of neighbourhoods that defy expectations contributes to our understanding of neighbourhood factors influencing child development. Using mixed-methods approaches, these neighbourhoods can be compared to nearby neighbourhoods from the same SES profile group that do not defy expectations, in an effort to identify contextual factors that differentiate them.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".