MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1601134265

Perceived Threat, Ethnic Minority Prejudice and the Riots in England

2012· article· en· W1601134265 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew Goodwin, Mark Pickup, Eline A. de Rooij

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrejudice (legal term)Salience (neuroscience)Ethnic groupHostilityImmigrationSituational ethicsFeelingPolitical scienceCriminologySocial psychologyGender studiesPsychologySociologyLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent years have seen an increase in anti-immigrant and anti-ethnic minority sentiment in Britain and elsewhere. Yet while the scale of anti-immigrant hostility is well documented, its underlying drivers are less well understood. In this paper, we examine the role that different types of perceived threat - cultural, safety and economic - play in explaining prejudice towards three major minority groups: Muslims, Black British and East Europeans. Next, we explore how citizens’ immediate real world environment impacts on the salience of these perceived threats, and ultimately on ethnic prejudice, with a natural experiment in which the riots that occurred in major cities in England in August 2011 are used as a ‘situational trigger’. For this study we conducted two large nationally representative surveys before and after the riots. The results show that, in the aftermath of the riots, people were more likely to feel that their society’s security and culture were under threat, but did not feel more economically threatened. Moreover, because the rioting increased feelings of threat among a substantial portion of the British public, there was an increase in prejudice towards Black British and East Europeans communities.

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)0.003
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 score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicSocial and Intergroup Psychology→French-language works237,207→