Segregación residencial según dos modelos de urbanización y bienestar: estudio comparado de las áreas metropolitanas del Gran Santiago, Toronto y Vancouver
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En este artículo se comparan las pautas de segregación residencial de las grandes áreas metropolitanas del Gran Santiago (Chile), y Toronto y Vancouver (Canadá). Se trata de dos países donde los indicadores de segregación residencial son elevados, pero que presentan diferentes grados y dinámicas de integración social. En Chile, su capital tiene un grave problema de segregación social vinculada al espacio, mientras que en las metrópolis canadienses existen elevados niveles de integración urbana y social y una segmentación urbana que no está asociada a la segregación social ni a un “efecto vecindario”. En este trabajo se describe el estado de la investigación sobre segregación residencial socioeconómica en ambos países y se realiza un estudio comparado de la segregación de inmigrantes internacionales sobre la base de una tipología de identificación de barrios gueto creada para los Estados Unidos. Por último, en las conclusiones se examinan las distintas realidades de los barrios estudiados y se identifican lecciones de política urbana y de fomento del bienestar aplicables a Chile.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| 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".