Stereotypical and counterstereotypical defendants: Who is he and what was the case against her?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three studies investigated the effects of stereotype congruence on juror decision making by focusing on how defendant gender affects the way in which jurors attend to aspects of the case. Due to the female defendant's incongruence with offender stereotypes, mock jurors may direct greater attention to encoding features of the defendant at the expense of carefully considering the evidence. Study 1 (N = 101) found that mock jurors took into account the strength of the evidence against male (stereotypical), but not female (counterstereotypical) defendants. Consistent with this, Study 2 (N = 144) demonstrated that mock jurors were less able to recall facts of the case, but better able to recall details of the defendant, when the defendant was female rather than male. The third and final study (N = 113) found that participants spent longer looking at a female defendant than they did looking at a male defendant in a video simulation of a mock trial. Results are discussed in light of the encoding-flexibility explanation of the influence of stereotypes.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it