MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1926731343 · doi:10.1111/josi.12027

Uncertainty, Threat, and the Role of the Media in Promoting the Dehumanization of Immigrants and Refugees

2013· article· en· W1926731343 on OpenAlexaff
Victoria M. Esses, Stelian Medianu, Andrea Lawson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Social Issues · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDehumanizationRefugeeImmigrationPolitical scienceCriminologyGovernment (linguistics)Social psychologyDevelopment economicsSociologyPsychologyEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Immigration policies and the treatment of immigrants and refugees are contentious issues involving uncertainty and unease. The media may take advantage of this uncertainty to create a crisis mentality in which immigrants and refugees are portrayed as “enemies at the gate” who are attempting to invade Western nations. Although it has been suggested that such depictions promote the dehumanization of immigrants and refugees, there has been little direct evidence for this claim. Our program of research addresses this gap by examining the effects of common media portrayals of immigrants and refugees on dehumanization and its consequences. These portrayals include depictions that suggest that immigrants spread infectious diseases, that refugee claimants are often bogus, and that terrorists may gain entry to western nations disguised as refugees. We conclude by discussing the implications of the findings for understanding how uncertainty may lead to dehumanization, and for establishing government policies and practices that counteract such effects.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.009
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0000.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Citations611
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Social IssuesSame topicSocial and Intergroup PsychologyFrench-language works237,207