MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Do poverty and wealth look the same the world over? A comparative study of 12 cities from five high-income countries using street images

2023· article· en· W4379794872 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEPJ Data Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Green Space and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMedical Research CouncilWellcome Trust
KeywordsAtlantaSocioeconomic statusPovertyInequalityGeographyUrbanizationDisadvantageUrban studiesMetropolitan areaRegional scienceEconomic growthEconomic geographySociologyPolitical scienceDemographyPopulationEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Urbanization and inequalities are two of the major policy themes of our time, intersecting in large cities where social and economic inequalities are particularly pronounced. Large scale street-level images are a source of city-wide visual information and allow for comparative analyses of multiple cities. Computer vision methods based on deep learning applied to street images have been shown to successfully measure inequalities in socioeconomic and environmental features, yet existing work has been within specific geographies and have not looked at how visual environments compare across different cities and countries. In this study, we aim to apply existing methods to understand whether, and to what extent, poor and wealthy groups live in visually similar neighborhoods across cities and countries. We present novel insights on similarity of neighborhoods using street-level images and deep learning methods. We analyzed 7.2 million images from 12 cities in five high-income countries, home to more than 85 million people: Auckland (New Zealand), Sydney (Australia), Toronto and Vancouver (Canada), Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, and Washington D.C. (United States of America), and London (United Kingdom). Visual features associated with neighborhood disadvantage are more distinct and unique to each city than those associated with affluence. For example, from what is visible from street images, high density poor neighborhoods located near the city center (e.g., in London) are visually distinct from poor suburban neighborhoods characterized by lower density and lower accessibility (e.g., in Atlanta). This suggests that differences between two cities is also driven by historical factors, policies, and local geography. Our results also have implications for image-based measures of inequality in cities especially when trained on data from cities that are visually distinct from target cities. We showed that these are more prone to errors for disadvantaged areas especially when transferring across cities, suggesting more attention needs to be paid to improving methods for capturing heterogeneity in poor environment across cities around the world. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1140/epjds/s13688-023-00394-6.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.942

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.002
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.272 · 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