MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Social Neuroscience and Public Policy on Intergroup Relations: A Hegelian Analysis

2010· article· en· W1508942327 on OpenAlex
Sonia K. Kang, Michael Inzlicht, Belle Derks

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Social Issues · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial neuroscienceNeurolawPublic policyStigma (botany)Public relationsHegelianismPolitical scienceField (mathematics)PsychologySociologySocial psychologySocial cognitionNeuroscienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social neuroscience is an exciting new field with much to offer to the study of stigma and intergroup relations. In this article, we consider the potential impact that social neuroscience will have for social and public policy pertaining to these important topics. Taking a Hegelian approach, we discuss why social neuroscience should and should not be used by intergroup researchers and policy makers to inform public policy. We then critique these arguments and provide suggestions for best practices. Overall, our assessment of the potential for social neuroscience to inform public policy is positive, but we encourage researchers and policy makers alike to use this new methodology with social responsibility and frugality in mind.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.838
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.278 · 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