MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141644383 · doi:10.1177/1746197910387543

‘No biggie’: The denial of oppression on campus

2010· article· en· W2141644383 on OpenAlex

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEducation Citizenship and Social Justice · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCritical Race Theory in Education
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDenialOppressionRacismHostilitySociologyEmbeddednessUniversity campusCriminologyGender studiesSocial psychologyPsychologyPolitical sciencePoliticsSocial scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shifts in the demographics in North American colleges and universities over the past decades have created much more diverse and multiethnic campuses. Some praise these trends for creating more dynamic environments. However, not all are happy with the ‘infiltration’ of traditionally white, male enclaves, such that newcomers are met with hostility, even violence. In our campus hate crime study conducted at adjoining college and university campuses in Ontario, we found widespread awareness that minority students were frequent victims of hate crime and discrimination. In an interesting paradox, however, this did not translate into a parallel awareness that racism, or sexism, or homophobia were problems for the campus in question. In other words, while students may observe racist behaviour, they do not ‘see’ it — that is, they do not register the structured embeddedness of campus oppression.

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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.540
Threshold uncertainty score0.917

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.352 · 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