The Relationship of Symbolic Beliefs and Prior Contact to Heterosexuals' Attitudes Toward Gay Men and Lesbian Women.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les recherches anterieures on examine la relation du contact anterieur et / ou des convictions symboliques et les attitudes envers les homosexuels ou les hommes gais. Cependant, peu d'etudes ont ete realisees sur les attitudes envers les lesbiennes. Nous avons examine les relations simultanees des convictions symboliques et du contact anterieur sur les attitudes envers les hommes gais et les attitudes envers les lesbiennes. Des analyses de regression ont indique qu'en propre les convictions symboliques ou le contact anterieur ne sont pas des predicteurs significatifs des attitudes envers les deux groupes. Mais lorsqu'on les examine ensemble, les convictions symboliques predisent les attitudes envers les lesbiennes alors que le contact anterieur predit les attitudes envers les hommes gais. Dans l'ensemble, les participants avaient eu plus de contacts avec des hommes gais qu'avec des lesbiennes. Les implications de nos resultats font l'objet de discussions en termes d'hypothese du contact.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".