MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146585235 · doi:10.1177/0146167210372505

Perceiving Your Group’s Future to Be in Jeopardy: Extinction Threat Induces Collective Angst and the Desire to Strengthen the Ingroup

2010· article· en· W2146585235 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

VenuePersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDeath Anxiety and Social Exclusion
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIngroups and outgroupsPsychologySocial psychologyExtinction (optical mineralogy)VitalityTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Collective angst reflects concern about the ingroup's future vitality. In four studies, the authors examined the impact of ingroup extinction threat on the experience of collective angst. In Study 1, collective angst was elicited in response to a physical or symbolic ingroup extinction threat compared to a no-threat control group. In Study 2, the extent to which French Canadians expressed collective angst because of the perceived extinction threat posed by English Canada predicted desire to engage in ingroup strengthening behaviors. In Studies 3 and 4, the impact of a historical extinction threat was assessed. The extent to which Jewish people expressed thinking about (Study 3) or were reminded of the Holocaust (Study 4) resulted in an increased desire to engage in ingroup strengthening behaviors. Collective angst acted as a mediator of these effects. Implications of extinction threat for both intragroup and intergroup behavior are 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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.850
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.288 · 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