Tag Archives | Segregation

Is College Really “the” Equalizer? New Evidence Addressing Unobserved Selection

Haowen Zheng, Robert Andersen, Anders Holm, Kristian Bernt Karlson

Sociological Science March 3, 2026
10.15195/v13.a10


Influential research shows that college graduates achieve similar labor market outcomes regardless of socioeconomic origin, leading to the view that a college degree is a “great equalizer.” Still, other evidence suggests that family background continues to shape labor market outcomes long after graduation, implying that college’s equalizing effect may largely reflect the characteristics of those who pursue higher education. However, the role of unobserved selection into college has rarely been examined. After formally illustrating how this unobserved selection can bias estimates of the college effect, we present new analyses that correct for this bias using an instrumental-variable approach on white male respondents in the 1979 cohort of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. The selection-corrected results suggest that intergenerational mobility is similar among college graduates and nongraduates. Although college yields substantial returns for all, these returns do not differ by family background. We conclude that for higher education to serve as a true equalizer, it must become both less selective and more accessible to students from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Haowen Zheng: Stone Center for Inequality Dynamics, University of Michigan.
E-mail: zhenghw@umich.edu

Robert Andersen: Ivey Business School, Western University.
E-mail: bob.andersen@ivey.ca

Anders Holm: Department of Sociology, Western University.
E-mail: aholm@uwo.ca

Kristian Bernt Karlson: Department of Sociology, University of Copenhagen.
E-mail: kbk@soc.ku.dk

Acknowledgments: The authors thank Richard Breen, Wenhao Jiang, Robert Manduca, Kim Weeden, Ang Yu, and participants at PAA 2025, the Sociological Science 2025 Conference, and ASA 2025 for their helpful comments and support. This research was conducted with restricted access to Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data. We thank the staff at BLS and NORC at the University of Chicago for their assistance with accessing restricted data. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the BLS.

Supplemental Materials

Reproducibility Package: A replication package is available at https://osf.io/ne23f/. It includes all code used for data cleaning and analysis as well as a cleaned data set derived from the public-use NLSY79 data. Part of the analysis relies on restricted geographic data obtained through a data contract with the BLS (see https://www.bls.gov/nls/request-restricted-data/nlsy-geocode-data.htm). This is not included in the replication package but can be accessed through a BLS application. The instrumental variables were drawn from the replication package of Carneiro, Heckman, and Vytlacil (2011) (see https://www.openicpsr.org/openicpsr/project/112467/ version/V1/view).

  • Citation: Zheng, Haowen, Robert Andersen, Anders Holm, and Kristian Bernt Karlson. 2026. “Is College Really “the” Equalizer? New Evidence Addressing Unobserved Selection” Sociological Science 13: 242-272.
  • Received: October 6, 2025
  • Accepted: December 12, 2025
  • Editors: Arnout van de Rijt, Jeremy Freese
  • DOI: 10.15195/v13.a10

0

Early Childhood Investments and Women’s Work Outcomes across the Life Course

Vida Maralani, Camille Portier, Berkay Özcan

Sociological Science February 24, 2026
10.15195/v13.a9


This study investigates variability in women’s experiences balancing work and family, focusing on the association between early childhood investments and work trajectories. Using longitudinal data and event study models, we examine work participation from two years before to 10 years after first birth across different early childhood investment levels. Although sustained intensive investment is associated with the largest reduction in paid work, the relationship between child investment and work outcomes does not follow a simple “more investment, less work” pattern. Instead, investment intensity and duration both shape work trajectories. Women with more intensive short-term practices or moderate longer-term ones work at similar levels as women making lower investments. Patterns also differ by work outcome: not working is most differentiated by sustained intensive child investment, whereas hours worked are similar across a range of investment levels. Finally, women with constrained family resources consistently work more than those married to college-educated spouses.
Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Vida Maralani: Cornell University.
E-mail: vida.maralani@cornell.edu.

Camille Portier: European University Institute.
E-mail: camille.portier@eui.eu.

Berkay Özcan: New York University Abu Dhabi.
E-mail: berkay.ozcan@nyu.edu.

Acknowledgments: We thank Isadora Milanez, Douglas McKee, Douglas Miller, Samuel Stabler, Kim Weeden, Kelly Musick, Patrick Ishizuka, Stephen Jenkins, Peter Rich, Lucinda Platt, Seth Sanders, Duncan Thomas, Zhipeng Zhou, and Alvaro Padilla Pozo for their valuable feedback and support on this project. We are grateful for research support from the Cornell Center on the Study of Inequality. After completing the study and drafting this manuscript, we used ChatGPT (OpenAI) to check grammar and clarity in several sections of dense prose.

Supplemental Materials

Reproducibility Package: Replication code for this article can be accessed here: https://osf.io/j8ymw/overview.

  • Citation: Maralani, Vida, Camille Portier, and Berkay Özcan. 2026. “Early Childhood Investments and Women’s Work Outcomes across the Life Course” Sociolog- ical Science 13: 214-241.
  • Received: August 31, 2025
  • Accepted: January 13, 2026
  • Editors: Ari Adut, Maria Abascal
  • DOI: 10.15195/v13.a9

0

Force of Attraction and Partner Availability in the U.S. Marriage Market: A Two-Sided Matching Model

Yuan Cheng, John K. Dagsvik, Xuehui Han, Zhiyang Jia

Sociological Science February 17, 2026
10.15195/v13.a8


This article develops and applies a stochastic two-sided matching model to analyze marriage patterns in the United States using 1 percent samples from the 2010 and 2019 American Community Survey, accessed via the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series. This approach disentangles two sources of change in marriage patterns over time: individuals’ preferences for partner characteristics (“forces of attraction”) and the numbers and composition of potential partners (“partner availability”). As illustrated by our empirical application, the model provides a flexible and unified analytical framework to address a broad range of relevant questions in marriage research, offering valuable new perspectives on marriage dynamics and facilitating future research, despite the limitation that the model does not separately identify individual-specific preferences.
Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Yuan Cheng: Population Research Institute, Fudan University.
E-mail: chengyuan@fudan.edu.cn.

John K. Dagsvik: Research Department, Statistics Norway.
E-mail: john.dagsvik@ssb.no.

Xuehui Han: Asia and Pacific Department, International Monetary Fund.
E-mail: XHan@imf.org.

Zhiyang Jia: Research Department, Statistics Norway.
E-mail: Zhiyang.Jia@ssb.no.

Acknowledgments: We are grateful to the editor, Professor Arnout van de Rijt, and the deputy editor for their constructive comments that significantly improved our analysis. We also thank Zhenchao Qian, participants of the sociology research seminar at The Ohio State University, and graduate students in the Labor Economics course at Fudan University for their valuable feedback. We extend special thanks to Xizhe Peng for his continued support and facilitation of this project. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the International Monetary Fund or Statistics Norway. Any remaining errors are our own.

  • Citation: Cheng, Yuan, John K. Dagsvik, Xuehui Han, and Zhiyang Jia. 2026. “Force of Attraction and Partner Availability in the U.S. Marriage Market: A Two-Sided Matching Model” Sociological Science 13: 178-213.
  • Received: November 22, 2025
  • Accepted: January 12, 2026
  • Editors: Arnout van de Rijt, Michael Rosenfeld
  • DOI: 10.15195/v13.a8

0

The Faith Factor. How Scholars’ Religiosity Biases Research Findings on Secularization

Valeria Rainero, Jörg Stolz, Ruud Luijkx

Sociological Science February 10, 2026
10.15195/v13.a7


Secularization is one of the most debated areas of research in current sociology of religion. Despite hundreds of empirical studies, researchers do not even agree on the very existence of secularization in different parts of the world. This article investigates whether some of the variability in findings may be attributed not to the social reality investigated but to bias in the form of researchers’ own religiosity. Specifically, we test whether researchers’ religiosity is correlated with two outcomes: their personal belief in the secularization thesis and the likelihood of supporting secularization in their published articles. To address this question, we constructed an international database of scholars working on secularization and conducted a survey measuring their religiosity and beliefs about religious decline. We then coded their publications according to whether they supported the secularization thesis and linked the two data sets. We find significant evidence of a “(non-)religious bias.” Either in their private attitudes or public writings, religious researchers find less evidence for the secularization thesis, whereas secular scholars find more. This result cannot be explained by differences in research methods, study quality, or the religious and geographic contexts under investigation.
Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Valeria Rainero: Department of Sociology and Social Research, University of Trento.
E-mail: valeria.rainero@unitn.it.

Jörg Stolz: Institute for Social Sciences of Religion, University of Lausanne.
E-mail: joerg.stolz@unil.ch.

Ruud Luijkx: Department of Sociology, Tilburg University & Department of Sociology and Social Research, University of Trento.
E-mail: r.luijkx@uvt.nl.

Acknowledgments: We sincerely thank everyone who provided valuable comments and suggestions during presentations of this article at the University of Milan (2023), the SSSR Conference in Pittsburgh (2024), and the Institute for Social Sciences of Religions at the University of Lausanne (2024). We also wish to thank Eduard Ponarin and Dominik Balazka for their contributions to the earlier version of the research design and Jeremy Senn for conducting the inter-coder reliability test.

Supplemental Materials

Reproducibility Package: A replication package with instructions, data, and STATA code is publicly available on the Open Science Framework (OSF): https://osf.io/vcxnk/.

  • Citation: Rainero, Valeria, Jörg Stolz, and Ruud Luijkx. 2026. “The Faith Factor. How Scholars’ Religiosity Biases Research Find- ings on Secularization” Sociological Science 13: 154-177.
  • Received: October 30, 2025
  • Accepted: December 16, 2025
  • Editors: Arnout van de Rijt, Andreas Wimmer
  • DOI: 10.15195/v13.a7

0

Poor Neighborhoods, Bad Schools? A High-Dimensional Model of Place-Based Disparities in Academic Achievement

Geoffrey T. Wodtke, Kailey White, Xiang Zhou

Sociological Science February 6, 2026
10.15195/v13.a6


Persistent disparities in academic achievement between students from high- and low- poverty neighborhoods are widely attributed to differences in school quality. Using nationally representative data from more than 18,000 students and nearly 1,000 elementary schools, we examine how the schools serving students from different neighborhoods vary across more than 160 characteristics, including detailed measures of their composition, resources, instruction, climate, and effectiveness. Our findings document significant differences in demographic composition between schools serving high- and low-poverty neighborhoods but comparatively little variation in other dimensions of the school environment. With novel machine learning methods tailored for high-dimensional data, we estimate that equalizing all these different factors would reduce the achievement gap by less than 10 percent, primarily through changes in school composition. These results suggest that the main drivers of place-based disparities in achievement lie outside of elementary schools, underscoring the need to address broader structural inequalities as part of any effort to reduce achievement gaps.
Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Geoffrey T. Wodtke: Department of Sociology, University of Chicago.
E-mail: wodtke@uchicago.edu.

Kailey White: Crime Lab and Education Lab, University of Chicago.
E-mail: kwhite10@uchicago.edu.

Xiang Zhou: Department of Sociology, Harvard University.
E-mail: xiang_zhou@fas.harvard.edu.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank Steve Raudenbush, Guanglei Hong, Ariel Kalil, Steven Durlauf, Eric Grodsky, and Lucienne Disch for helpful comments and discussions. This project was supported by a grant from the U.S. National Science Foundation (No. 2015613) and by the James M. and Cathleen D. Stone Foundation. We used Chat- GPT, version 4o, for help with copyediting the manuscript and debugging R scripts. Responsibility for all content rests solely with the authors.

Supplemental Materials

Reproducibility Package: Code and instructions for accessing the data necessary to reproduce the results presented in this article are available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17634676.

  • Citation: Wodtke, T. Geoffrey, Kailey White, and Xiang Zhou. 2026. “Poor Neighborhoods, Bad Schools? A High-Dimensional Model of Place-Based Disparities in Academic Achievement” Sociological Science 13: 109-153.
  • Received: September 8, 2025
  • Accepted: December 12, 2025
  • Editors: Arnout van de Rijt, Jeremy Freese
  • DOI: 10.15195/v13.a6

0

How Measurement Changes Can Exaggerate the Growth of Religious “Nones”

Matthew Conrad, Conrad Hackett

Sociological Science February 3, 2026
10.15195/v13.a5


Academic and popular interest in nonreligion has risen in parallel with the growth of religiously unaffiliated populations. In many countries, census and survey questions used to measure religion have been modified to better capture nonreligious identities. Little attention has been given to how these changes in measures affect specific claims about the rise of the “nones.” Although there is no doubt that religiously unaffiliated populations have grown in many countries during the twenty- first century, the degree of such growth has sometimes been exaggerated due to measurement effects. We review methodological issues that affect the estimates of the size of religiously unaffiliated populations and their change over time. We call for further study to quantify the effect of these changes.
Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Matthew Conrad: Department of Anthropology, University of Connecticut.
E-mail: matthew.conrad@uconn.edu.

Conrad Hackett: Pew Research Center, University of Maryland.
E-mail: chackett@pewresearch.org.

Acknowledgments: We are grateful for helpful feedback from Philip Brenner, Ryan Cragun, Ariela Keysar, Courtney Kennedy, Andrew Mercer, and David Voas. Many people contributed to our broader project of measuring religious change, including Marcin Stonawski, Yunping Tong, Stephanie Kramer, Anne Shi, Alan Cooperman, Joanna Sikorska, and Caileigh Stirling. Support for this work came from The Pew Charitable Trusts and the John Templeton Foundation (grant 62287).

Reproducibility Package: A package is available on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/93exg/) that contains data and R code to reproduce the results in this article, as well as links to the full data sets.

  • Citation: Conrad, Matthew, and Conrad Hackett. 2025. “How Measurement Changes Can Exaggerate the Growth of Religious “Nones”” Sociological Sci- ence 13: 89-108.
  • Received: September 15, 2025
  • Accepted: November 14, 2025
  • Editors: Ari Adut, Cristobal Young
  • DOI: 10.15195/v13.a5

0

Ambiguous Actorhood: Twenty-First Century Firms and the Evasion of Responsibility

Carly R. Knight, Adam Goldstein

Sociological Science January 27, 2026
10.15195/v13.a4


Sociologists have long argued that the cultural construction of organizations as social actors underpins public expectations of corporate accountability. In recent decades, however, the unified bureaucratic structures that once sustained this construction have given way to increasingly fragmented and opaque organizational forms. This study considers to what extent the diffuse, often illegible nature of twenty-first century corporations undermines the ability of public audiences to demand corporate accountability. We argue that complex, fragmented organizational configurations allow firms to partially evade the negative reputational consequences of misconduct by confounding audiences and obfuscating the “actor” behind the bad organizational action. Drawing on a vignette- based survey experiment, we test whether fragmentation reduces attributions of blame following corporate wrongdoing. Consistent with our hypotheses, we find that while respondents generally attribute high levels of blame for wrongdoing, greater fragmentation decreases the blame directed at core firms and heightens audiences’ uncertainty about responsibility. Moreover, in fragmented structures, blame is not simply redistributed to auxiliary entities but is diminished overall. These findings suggest that as corporate structures grow more complex and less legible, the underlying actors behind organizational action become harder to identify and construct, and thereby harder to hold to account.
Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Carly R. Knight: New York University.
E-mail: carly.knight@nyu.edu.

Adam Goldstein: Princeton University.
E-mail: amg5@princeton.edu.

Acknowledgments: The authors are listed in reverse alphabetical order. For helpful com- ments, the authors wish to thank Laura Adler, Barbara Kiviat, Kim Pernell, and Claire Sieffert. This article has benefitted from presentations at the 2024 American Sociological Association Meetings and the 2025 RC17 Conference on Organizing Plurality.

Supplemental Materials

Reproducibility Package: Data and code to reproduce the results reported in this article are avail- able at OSF (https://osf.io/enpmt/). The online supplemental appendix also contains additional information about the survey data.

  • Citation: Knight, Carly R., Adam Goldstein. 2025. “Ambiguous Actorhood: Twenty-First Century Firms and the Evasion of Respon- sibility” Sociological Science 13: 63-88.
  • Received: August 26, 2025
  • Accepted: October 31, 2025
  • Editors: Arnout van de Rijt, Kieran Healy
  • DOI: 10.15195/v13.a4

0

Generative AI in Sociological Research: State of the Discipline

AJ Alvero, Dustin S. Stoltz, Oscar Stuhler, Marshall A. Taylor

Sociological Science January 20, 2026
10.15195/v13.a3


Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has garnered considerable attention for its poten- tial utility in research and scholarship, even among those who typically do not rely on computational tools. However, early commentators have also articulated concerns about how GenAI usage comes with enormous environmental costs, serious social risks, and a tendency to produce low-quality content. In the midst of both excitement and skepticism, it is crucial to take stock of how GenAI is actually being used. Our study focuses on sociological research as our site, and here we present findings from a survey of 433 authors of articles published in 50 sociology journals in the past five years. The survey provides an overview of the state of the discipline with regard to the use of GenAI by providing answers to fundamental questions: how (much) do scholars use the technology for their research; what are their reasons for using it; and how concerned, trustful, and optimistic are they about the technology? Of the approximately one third of respondents who self-report using GenAI at least weekly, the primary uses are for writing assistance and comparatively less so in planning, data collection, or data analysis. In both use and attitudes, there are surprisingly few differences between self-identified computational and non-computational researchers. In general, respondents are very concerned about the social and environmental consequences of GenAI. Trust in GenAI outputs is low, regardless of expertise or frequency of use. Although optimism that GenAI will improve is high, scholars are divided on whether GenAI will have a positive impact on the field.
Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

AJ Alvero: Center for Data Science for Enterprise and Society, Cornell University.
E-mail: ajalvero@cornell.edu.

Dustin S. Stoltz: Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Lehigh University.
E-mail: dss219@lehigh.edu.

Oscar Stuhler: Department of Sociology, Northwestern University.
E-mail: oms@northwestern.edu.

Marshall A. Taylor: Department of Sociology, New Mexico State University.
E-mail: mtaylor2@nmsu.edu.

Acknowledgments: All authors contributed equally. We thank all the respondents of our survey for being generous with their time. We are indebted to Kim Weeden and Cat Dang Ton for giving us crucial comments on an early version of this article. We are also grateful for the important feedback we received at the ASA Session on Culture and Computational Social Science, the Sociological Science Conference at Cornell University, the International Network of Analytical Sociology Conference at Columbia University, the Institute for Analytical Sociology Symposium at Linköping University, and the Culture and Action Network at the University of Chicago.

Supplemental Materials

Reproducibility Package: A replication repository for this article can be found at: https://github.com/Marshall-Soc/genai_sociology. The data for this article are hosted on the Harvard Dataverse (Alvero et al. 2025) and can be accessed through: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/ICXIRP

  • Citation: Alvero, AJ, Dustin S. Stoltz, Oscar Stuhler, and Marshall A. Taylor. 2025. “Generative AI in Sociological Research: State of the Discipline” Sociological Science 13: 45-62.
  • Received: August 23, 2025
  • Accepted: November 8, 2025
  • Editors: Arnout van de Rijt, Cristobal Young
  • DOI: 10.15195/v13.a3

0

The Forward March of Categorical Tolerance in the United States

Omar Lizardo

Sociological Science January 13, 2026
10.15195/v13.a2


This article updates the empirical picture of categorical tolerance (CT), namely, the pattern of refusing to report dislikes across cultural genres, for the third decade of the twenty-first century in the United States. Analyzing recent survey data from two platforms, I find that CT has continued its march among Americans, reaching approximately one in five respondents. The analysis confirms earlier-observed demographic trends, showing that CT is strongly associated with younger cohorts and non-white individuals. However, I also find that individuals reporting the highest educational attainment are now overrepresented among categorical tolerants, suggesting that CT may increasingly function as an elite cultural strategy consistent with contemporary forms of status display, signaling openness and refusal to refuse. Furthermore, I find that while the odds of being a CT are not strongly polarized by political ideology, the inclination toward symbolic exclusion among non-CTs is, with conservatives significantly more likely to express a greater volume of cultural dislikes than liberals.
Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Omar Lizardo: Department of Sociology, UCLA.
E-mail: olizardo@soc.ucla.edu.

Acknowledgments: I would like to thank the anonymous Sociological Science reviewers for insightful suggestions for revision that helped improve the article. An early version of this article was presented at the first Sociological Science Conference at Duke University in 2024, where I received useful comments and suggestions.

No supplemental materials.

Reproducibility Package: Data files and R code (in Quarto Markdown format) necessary to reproduce all of the analyses, tables, and figures reported in the article can be found at the following GitHub repo: https://github.com/olizardo/sociological-science-categorical-tolerance-followup.

  • Citation: Lizardo, Omar. 2025. “The Forward March of Categorical Tolerance in the United States” Sociological Science 13: 22-44.
  • Received: October 18, 2025
  • Accepted: November 23, 2025
  • Editors: Ari Adut, Stephen Vaisey
  • DOI: 10.15195/v13.a2

0

How Do (Human) Child Welfare Workers Respond to Machine-Generated Risk Scores?

Martin Eiermann, Maria Fitzpatrick, Katharine Sadowski, Christopher Wildeman

Sociological Science January 6, 2026
10.15195/v13.a1


Algorithmic risk scoring tools have been widely incorporated into governmental decision making, yet little is known about how human decision makers interact with machine-generated risk scores at the street level. We examined such human–machine interactions in the child welfare system, a high-stakes setting where caseworkers ascertain whether government interventions in family life are warranted. Using novel data—verbatim transcripts of caseworker discussions—we found that decision makers: (1) disregarded scores in the middle of the distribution while paying attention to extremely high or low risk scores and (2) rationalized divergences between human decisions and machine-generated scores by highlighting the algorithm’s overemphasis on historical data and specific risk factors and its lack of contextual knowledge. This meant that caseworkers were unlikely to modify their decisions so that they aligned with risk scores. However, we did not find evidence of principled resistance to algorithmic tools. Our findings advance research on such tools by specifying how human perceptions of the utility and limitations of novel technologies shape discretionary decision making by state officials; and they help to explain their uneven and potentially modest impact on the bureaucratic management of social vulnerability.
Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Martin Eiermann: Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
E-mail: meiermann@wisc.edu.
Maria Fitzpatrick: Books School of Public Policy, Cornell University; National Bureau of Economic Research.
E-mail: maria.d.fitzpatrick@cornell.edu.
Katharine Sadowski: Graduate School of Education, Stanford University.
E-mail: ksadow@stanford.edu.
Christopher Wildeman: Department of Sociology, Duke University; Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University; ROCKWOOL Foundation Research Unit.
E-mail: christopher.wildeman@duke.edu.

Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful to Ruby Richards and Nicole Adams for feedback on earlier drafts of this manuscript and the Douglas County Department of Human Services for providing data throughout this project.

No supplemental materials.

Reproducibility Package: The terms of our Data Use Agreement with the Douglas County Department of Human Services (DCDHS) legally prohibit us from sharing the original data, which are temporarily stored on a secure Cornell University research server, cannot be shared externally, and must be destroyed at the end of the agreement period. These restrictions reflect the presence of highly sensitive child welfare data in verbatim transcripts of caseworker discussions. All analysis code and documentation of qualitative coding workflows are publicly available at OSF. Researchers with questions about Douglas County Decision Aide (DCDA) data that were generated during the randomized controlled trial may contact: Ruby Richards, Director of Human Services, Douglas County (303-688-4825).

  • Citation: Eiermann, Martin, Maria Fitzpatrick, Katharine Sadowski, and Christopher Wildeman. 2025. “How Do (Human) Child Welfare Workers Re- spond to Machine-Generated Risk Scores?” Sociological Science 13: 1-21.
  • Received: September 3, 2025
  • Accepted: November 14, 2025
  • Editors: Ari Adut, Jeremy Freese
  • DOI: 10.15195/v13.a1

0
SiteLock