MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400947741 · doi:10.1215/00703370-11482174

New Evidence From Census 2020 on the Residential Segregation of Same-Sex Households: A Research Note

2024· article· en· W4400947741 on OpenAlexaff
Amy Spring, Amin Ghaziani

Bibliographic record

VenueDemography · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCensusGeographyDemographyDemographic economicsResearch methodologyDemographic analysisPopulationSocioeconomicsSociologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 2020 decennial census provides new insights into the demography of same-sex households and can shed light on ongoing debates in urban and gayborhood studies. Although the U.S. Census gives a vast undercount of the LGBTQ population, it is still the largest source of nationally representative data on same-sex households and is accessible over three time points (2000, 2010, 2020). In this research note, we use 2020 census data to examine the residential patterns of same-sex households down to the neighborhood level. By employing the index of dissimilarity, we present results for the 100 largest U.S. cities and 100 largest metropolitan areas that demonstrate moderate yet persistent segregation. In a continuation of prior trends, male same-sex households remain more segregated from different-sex households than do female same-sex households. We find moderate levels of within-group segregation by gender and marital status-representing new demographic trends. Finally, metropolitan areas have a higher dissimilarity index than cities, revealing greater levels of segregation when factoring in suburban areas. We discuss these trends in light of debates regarding the spatial organization of sexuality in residential contexts and outline future avenues for research utilizing recently released 2020 census data.

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 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)0.002
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.355
Threshold uncertainty score0.530

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDemographySame topicHousing Market and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207