MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1191961823 · doi:10.1177/0020715215598351

Re-assessing self-interest theory: Can intergroup contact constrain self-interested reactions?

2015· article· en· W1191961823 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jens Peter Frølund Thomsen, Anders Engrob Birkmose

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Comparative Sociology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVulnerability (computing)Social psychologyContact theoryPsychologyCognitionComputer scienceComputer securityEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article expands previous research on self-interested reactions and intergroup contact by showing that (1) intergroup contact constrains the impact of personal economic vulnerability on perceived out-group threat, (2) personal economic vulnerability has no influence on perceived out-group threat when contact is most intense, and (3) the ability of intergroup contact to reduce perceived out-group threat is strongest among the most economically vulnerable. These findings were generated by a fixed-effects regression of 21 countries and almost 34,000 respondents sampled in the European Social Survey (2002–2003). More generally, our findings suggest that self-interested reactions can be overpowered by the cognitive and affective components of intergroup contact. The concluding section expands on the theoretical implications of the results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.095
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.095
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.144
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Comparative SociologySame topicSocial and Intergroup PsychologyFrench-language works237,207