MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Political Tolerance, Racist Speech, and the Influence of Social Networks*

2010· article· en· W1486560818 on OpenAlexaffabout
Allison Harell

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Science Quarterly · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiversity (politics)PoliticsMulticulturalismSocial psychologyEthnic groupRacismSociologyNorm (philosophy)PsychologyPolitical scienceGender studiesLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective. This study examines the influence of ethnic and racial network diversity on young people's attitudes about speech rights in Canada by examining the impact of diversity on racist groups' speech compared to other objectionable speech. Methods. After reviewing prior work on diversity and political tolerance judgments, the study presents multinomial logistic regressions to assess the impact of network diversity on three types of political tolerance dispositions. The data are drawn from the Canadian Youth Study, a sample of 10th- and 11th-grade students in Quebec and Ontario (N=3,334). Results. The analysis suggests that exposure to racial and ethnic diversity in one's social networks decreases political tolerance of racist speech while simultaneously having a positive effect on political tolerance of other types of objectionable speech. Conclusions. The dual effects arguably represent an evolving norm of multicultural political tolerance, in which citizens endorse legal limits on racist speech. Future work should assess the extent to which target group distinctions in political tolerance judgments have evolved over time and across age cohorts.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.327
Threshold uncertainty score0.650

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations32
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Science QuarterlySame topicSocial Media and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207