How children and adolescents evaluate gender and racial exclusion.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children's and adolescents' social reasoning about exclusion was assessed in three different social contexts. Participants (N = 294) at three ages, 10 years (4th grade), 13.7 years (7th grade), and 16.2 years (10th grade), fairly evenly divided by gender, from four ethnic groups, European-American (n = 109), African-American (n = 96), and a combined sample of Asian-American and Latin-American participants (n = 89) were interviewed regarding their social reasoning about exclusion based on group membership, gender, and race. The contexts for exclusion were friendship, peer, and school. Significant patterns of reasoning about exclusion were found for the context, the target (gender or race) of exclusion, and the degree to which social influence, authority expectations, and cultural norms explained children's judgments. There were also significant differences depending on the gender, age, and ethnicity of the participants. The findings support our theoretical proposal that exclusion is a multifaceted phenomenon and that different forms of reasoning are brought to bear on the issue. This model was drawn from social-cognitive domain theory, social psychological theories of stereotype knowledge and intergroup relationships, and developmental studies on peer relationships. The results contribute to an understanding of the factors involved in the developmental emergence of judgments about exclusion based on group membership as well as to the phenomena of prejudice, discrimination, and the fair treatment of others.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".