MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4362652623 · doi:10.46692/9781847424419.007

Challenging the myth of ‘Minority White Cities’

2009· other· en· W4362652623 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Ethnicity, and Economy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMythologyWhite (mutation)ArtHistoryArt historyLiteratureChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Whites will soon become a minority in Birmingham and other major British cities, posing a critical challenge to social stability, Britain’s race relations watchdog has warned. The Sunday Times newspaper Introduction Concerns about the consequences of immigration and residential segregation converge in a spectre of ‘Minority White Cities’, where White residents make up less than half of the population. There is a fascination with the year in which particular cities will lose their White majority both from those whose work encourages ethnic diversity and those who fear lack of integration. Thus, publicity from a global forum on Cities in Transition was headlined by the wholly unsubstantiated claim that ‘Birmingham is set to join Toronto and Los Angeles as a “majority-minority city” by 2011’ in order to raise questions for planning: ‘What will it mean for public services and race relations when more than half the population is non-White?’ Similarly, the Commission for Racial Equality’s factual profiles based on the 2001 Census and prepared in 2006 claim that ‘Leicester is widely predicted, within the next five years, to become the first city in Europe with a majority non-white population. Nowhere else in Britain has proportionally fewer White British residents’. Here ‘widely predicted’ needs to be interpreted as ‘predicted wide of the mark’ as no such predictions have been made. The coolly stated ‘fact’ of Leicester’s extremely low proportion of White British residents is also false. In 2007 a contributor to Wikipedia, a widely used free online encyclopaedia edited by its readers, used six such apparently authoritative reports to claim that ‘The indigenous population is due to be a minority in Leicester, London and in Birmingham by the time of the 2011 Census’. Two claims about Minority White Cities are addressed in this chapter. First, that the phenomenon of a Minority White City has some democratic meaning or significance for city management. Second, that population change will be such that several British cities will have fewer than half their residents of White ethnicities by 2011. The chapter examines the predictions and puts the evidence beside them, which demonstrates severe exaggeration. First, we argue that the notion of cities becoming plural in the near future (where no one racial or ethnic group has a majority) is simply a convenient hook on which to hang discussion of the challenges and opportunities of future multicultural cities.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0200.038
Scholarly communication0.0190.016
Open science0.0030.012
Research integrity0.0130.030
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMigration, Ethnicity, and Economy→French-language works237,207→