MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002287752 · doi:10.1080/1068316x.2014.915325

The influence of defendant race and victim physical attractiveness on juror decision-making in a sexual assault trial

2014· article· en· W2002287752 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology Crime and Law · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPhysical attractivenessSexual assaultAttractivenessRace (biology)Social psychologyWhite (mutation)Sexual attractionCriminologyPoison controlSuicide preventionSexual behaviorMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous research has examined separately the influence of defendant race and victim physical attractiveness on juror decision-making in sexual assault trials. The current study sought to examine the combined effects of defendant race and victim physical attractiveness in a trial of alleged acquaintance sexual assault. Mock jurors read a trial transcript in which the defendant race and victim physical attractiveness were manipulated via photographs. Results demonstrated that women were not influenced by victim attractiveness, but that men were more certain of the defendant guilt when the victim was unattractive. Defendant race and victim attractiveness interacted with regards to victim responsibility ratings – when the defendant was White, attractive victims were rated as more responsible for the alleged assault than unattractive victims; this effect was reversed for trials with a Black defendant and nonexistent for trials with an Aboriginal Canadian defendant.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.751
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.378 · 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