Latino Group Consciousness and Perceptions of Commonality with African Americans<sup>*</sup>
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
Objective. Currently, Latinos and African Americans constitute more than one‐quarter of the U.S. population. The sheer size of these groups suggests an opportunity for increased political influence, with this opportunity providing the incentive for greater social and political interaction between them. The objective of this article is to determine the role of Latino group consciousness in the formation of attitudes toward African Americans. Methods. Utilizing data from the 1999 Washington Post/Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation National Survey on Latinos, a multivariate ordered logit model is employed to test the relationship between Latino group consciousness and perceptions of commonality with African Americans. Results. Results show that group consciousness in the form of Latino internal commonality and perceived discrimination are contributors to Latino perceptions of commonality with African Americans. Conclusion. This analysis demonstrates that before any meaningful political alliances can be formed between the nation's two largest minority groups, Latinos may need to develop strong levels of panethnic identity.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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