MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1840324414 · doi:10.1111/asap.12035

Intergroup Ideology and Environmental Inequality

2013· article· en· W1840324414 on OpenAlex

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

VenueAnalyses of Social Issues and Public Policy · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Education and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityThe King's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial dominance orientationDominance (genetics)IdeologyIngroups and outgroupsPopulationInequalitySocial psychologyEnvironmental justicePsychologyPolitical scienceSociologyDemographyPoliticsLawBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three studies showed that social dominance orientation could contribute to environmental inequality through its association with environmental and economic ideologies, pursuit of ingroup interest, and relative indifference toward groups with low economic standing. Study 1 showed that social dominance orientation is correlated with a lack of concern for the natural environment and with the endorsement of free‐market ideology. In Study 2, people higher in social dominance orientation endorsed a polluting industry that hurt a foreign population when the industry benefited their ingroup. Study 3 demonstrated that, given a choice of locations to site an environmentally problematic industry, people higher in social dominance orientation chose to direct the dangerous environmental footprint toward economically vulnerable foreign populations, and this was because of their relative lack of concern for human justice.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.324 · 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