Political Divisions in Large Cities: The Socio-Spatial Basis of Legislative Behavior in Chicago and Toronto
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
Contemporary cities are frequently characterized as divided by race and socioeconomic status, yet the political effects of segregation and stratification are rarely fully explored. Urban politics scholars have disagreed on whether urban politics is essentially consensual, conflicts are issue-based and transitory, or social and economic divides generate enduring political cleavages. We contribute to this debate with an analysis of elite conflict as manifested in recorded city council votes in two large, heterogeneous North American cities, Chicago and Toronto, over a multidecade period. The analysis employs a new technique for analyzing the dimensionality of roll-call votes. We find evidence of durable coordination among ward councilors in both cities; however, the substance of conflict differs. Correlating the dimensions of voting behavior with ward characteristics indicates that Chicago’s aldermen divide on racial lines, whereas Toronto’s councilors primarily divide on the place characteristics of wards and secondarily on socioeconomic status.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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