Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This chapter organizes the psychology of prejudice, racism, and discrimination under two main rubrics: (1) the psychology of the bigot, which seeks to understand why some people are prejudiced and discriminatory toward certain groups and their members and (2) the psychology of the victim of prejudice and discrimination, which focuses on the psychological correlates and consequences of perceiving oneself to be an object or target of prejudice and/or discrimination. Under the first rubric, classic and contemorary theories of prejudice are considered, including theories of the authoritarian personality, just world theory, belief congruence theory, ambivalence approaches (e.g., aversive racism, symbolic and modern racism, ambivalence amplification, ambivalent sexism, and blatant vs. subtle prejudice), automatic and controlled processing (e.g., the dissociation model and critiques of this model), and integrative approaches (social dominance theory, integrated threat theory, and the multicomponent approach to intergroup attitudes). Under the second rubric, the topics include attributional ambiguity perspectives, the personal‐group discrimination discrepancy, perceived prejudice and discrimination as stressors, stereotype threat, and relative deprivation and perceived discrimination as predictors of victims' desires to take protective action.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".