MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Ups and Downs of Attributional Ambiguity

2004· article· en· W2111389115 on OpenAlexaff
Joshua Aronson, Michael Inzlicht

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyStereotype threatAmbiguitySocial psychologyStereotype (UML)AttributionDevelopmental psychologyVulnerability (computing)Test (biology)Social cognitionCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research examined whether stereotype vulnerability-the tendency to expect, perceive, and be influenced by negative stereotypes about one's social category-is associated with uncertainty about one's academic self-knowledge in two important ways. We predicted that stereotype-vulnerable African American students would (a) know less about how much they know than less vulnerable students do and (b) have unstable academic efficacy. In Study 1, Black and White participants took a verbal test and indicated the probability that each of their answers was correct. As expected, stereotype-vulnerable Black participants were more miscalibrated than other participants. In Study 2, participants completed measures of self-efficacy twice daily for 8 days. Also as expected, the academic efficacy of stereotype-vulnerable Blacks fluctuated more-and more extremely-than that of other participants. The results suggest that, in addition to undermining intellectual performance, stigma interferes with academic self-knowledge.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.123
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.123
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.386 · 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

Citations184
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological ScienceSame topicSocial and Intergroup PsychologyFrench-language works237,207