MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1821552152 · doi:10.5539/ijps.v7n4p49

Ingroup Bias and Ingroup Projection in the Furry Fandom

2015· article· en· W1821552152 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Stephen Reysen, Courtney N. Plante, Sharon E. Roberts, Kathleen C. Gerbasi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Psychological Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIngroups and outgroupsPsychologyFandomSocial psychologyMediationIn-group favoritismSocial groupSocial identity theorySociologyMedia studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>In two studies, we examine ingroup favoritism within the furry community. Furry fans construct personas (“fursonas”) that are often related to a species of animal (e.g., fox, wolf). In Study 1, furries were found to rate their fursona species more favorably than other species. In Study 2, we examined whether the ingroup projection model may aid in understanding this ingroup species bias. Participants’ ratings of prototypicality of their species within the fandom was associated with greater favoritism of one’s species. A serial mediation model showed that identification with the fursona and perceived benefits of one’s fursona mediated the association between ingroup projection and ingroup species bias.</p>

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.457
GPT teacher head0.544
Teacher spread0.087 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Psychological StudiesSame topicSocial and Intergroup PsychologyFrench-language works237,207