Bibliographic record
Abstract
This data brief is the fourth in a series that profiles children of immigrants using up-to-date census data and other sources. 1 The first brief highlighted the fast growth of the immigrant population and important demographic trends. The second described the family circumstances of children of immigrants, and the third highlighted the circumstances of young children age 0 to 8. The current brief focuses on immigrant families ’ incomes, economic wellbeing, and use of public benefits. Immigrants Families Have Lower Wages and Incomes � Despite the high work effort of immigrant families, immigrant parents earn significantly less than nativeborn parents, and children of immigrants live in families with lower income levels. 2 However, hourly wages and family incomes vary significantly for different countries and regions of origin. In 2008, the median hourly wages for all wage and salary earners in immigrant families were lower than the median wages for native families ($14 versus $18, figure 1). 3 Wages were very low for Mexican ($11) and Central American families ($13), who earned about half as much hourly as workers in families with origins in the Middle East and South Asia (or “Middle East, ” $25); Europe, Canada, and Australia (“Europe, ” $24); and East Asia and the Pacific (“East Asia, ” $23). � Children of immigrants live in families with median incomes 20 percent lower than the family incomes of
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.521 | 0.346 |
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".