Population and Migration Trends in the District Differ from Nation’s
Bibliographic record
Abstract
is composed of four zones, each of which is centered around one of the four main cities: Little Rock, Louisville, Memphis and St. Louis. Economists who study urban areas argue that cities lead to higher levels of productivity due to agglomeration economies. In other words, the higher the density of individuals, the higher the overall level of productivity within that area. To examine the potential for productivity growth in the Eighth District, we looked at population and population density growth trends between 2000 and 2011. The District, whose population grew 6.5 percent since 2000 and 2.0 percent since 2007, 1 experienced significant growth in its metro areas. 2 To illustrate, Table 1 indicates that the population in the District’s metro areas grew 9.9 percent since 2000 and 2.9 percent since 2007. During these time periods, three of the four major metro areas in the District grew at rates lower than the nation’s. Specifically, the populations in Louisville, Memphis and St. Louis grew 11.0 percent, 9.7 percent and 4.3 percent,
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".