Roommate Relationships: A Comparison of Interracial and Same-Race Living Situations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of same-race versus interracial dormitory roommate relationships were explored with regard to relationship dissolution and academic achievement (i.e., grade point average). The present investigation made use of archival data spanning two academic years at a large, relatively diverse university. Of primary interest were White and African American first-year students assigned to White or African American roommates upon their arrival on campus. Another factor that was incorporated into this analysis was whether students requested to live with their roommates or were randomly assigned. Interracial roommate relationships were more likely to dissolve than either same-race White or same-race African American relationships. Randomly assigned living situations were less successful than ones in which roommates requested to share a room. Concerning grade point average at the end of the first academic quarter, African American first-year students tended to do better in interracial living situations, whereas White first-year students' academic success was not affected by roommate race. Instead, White first-year students were more sensitive to the academic abilities of their roommates. Results are discussed with regard to the implications for intergroup 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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".