MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

HOW SOCIAL DOMINANCE ORIENTATION AND JOB STATUS INFLUENCE PERCEPTIONS OF AFRICAN‐AMERICAN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION BENEFICIARIES

2005· article· en· W2143782445 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.

Bibliographic record

VenuePersonnel Psychology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySocial psychologyAffirmative actionPerceptionTest (biology)Social dominance orientationSocial cognitive theorySocial perceptionJob performanceBeneficiaryDominance (genetics)Social statusJob satisfactionSociologyPoliticsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines evaluative judgments about an African‐American beneficiary of affirmative action (AA) in two studies. Based on a motivated social cognition model, we test whether the use of AA, social dominance orientation (SDO), and job status jointly influence judgments about the future job performance and career progression of an AA beneficiary. In a sample of 244 undergraduate business students, Study 1 showed that SDO and AA interact to predict job‐related performance expectations, and AA and job status interact to predict career progression expectations. Study 2 used a different sample of 190 business undergraduates to test whether the effects of AA, job status, SDO and their interactions on evaluative judgments is mediated by stereotype application. Results showed that different dimensions of stereotypes mediated the relationships between SDO, job status and the AA × SDO interaction.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.601
Threshold uncertainty score0.636

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.350 · 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