MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122188898 · doi:10.1177/1368430210384417

Responding to group-based discrimination

2011· article· en· W2122188898 on OpenAlex
Mette D. Hersby, Jolanda Jetten, Michelle K. Ryan, Michael T. Schmitt

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGroup Processes & Intergroup Relations · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMentoring and Academic Development
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersEconomic and Social Research Council
KeywordsPsychologyLegitimacySocial psychologyAttributionPerceptionSocial identity theoryContext (archaeology)Social perceptionIdentity (music)Social groupPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In two studies we examined women’s willingness to engage in mentoring as a function of the perceived pervasiveness of gender discrimination and the appraised legitimacy of discrimination. In line with predictions, and confirming predictions from social identity theory, we found that perceiving discrimination against women to be illegitimate enhanced willingness to engage in mentoring when discrimination was seen to be pervasive compared to rare. In contrast, when gender discrimination was appraised as more legitimate, pervasiveness of discrimination attributions did not influence willingness to engage in mentoring. Study 2 provided evidence that the interactive effect of pervasiveness and legitimacy is explained by the extent to which mentoring is conceived of as support for collective goals. The results bring to the fore the impact of perceptions of the social context on women’s responses to career-development initiatives.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.633
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.266 · 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