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
This contribution examines the role of vicarious contact (observing in-group members having successful cross-group contact) as a tool to improve intergroup relations. Expanding previous research on indirect intergroup contact, vicarious contact (1) integrates and applies concepts of social-cognitive theory ( Bandura, 1986 ) to the field of intergroup contact research; (2) broadens the study of indirect contact effects to the observation of successful cross-group interactions; and (3) proposes to increase people’s intention for direct cross-group contact. Two video-based experiments indicate that vicarious contact improves attitudes towards the out-group and increases participants’ willingness to engage in direct cross-group contact. These studies provide evidence that the relation between vicarious contact and intergroup attitudes (and willingness to engage in direct contact) is sequentially mediated by self-efficacy expectancy and perceived intergroup uncertainty. Implications of these findings for further research on the (indirect) contact hypothesis and their application will be discussed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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