MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2267801410 · doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000258

Who Needs Imagined Contact?

2015· article· en· W2267801410 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

VenueSocial Psychology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPrejudice (legal term)Social contactContact hypothesisSocial psychologyIntervention (counseling)Contact theorySexual contact

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Imagined contact is a widely-used methodology for decreasing prejudice. Recently, however, the effectiveness and replicability of imagined contact have been debated. To the extent that imagined contact is theoretically a valuable intervention when actual contact is absent or less feasible, previous intergroup contact experiences presumably moderate the efficacy of imagined contact. The present investigation found that imagined contact effects were stronger among heterosexuals with infrequent (vs. frequent) previous contact with gays, improving their intergroup emotions and attitudes (Study 1, N = 261). In contrast, there were no such effects of imagined contact with Muslims among non-Muslims (Study 2, N = 320). These findings highlight the potential for moderators to impact the efficacy of experimental contact simulations. Theoretical and practical implications 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.825
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.348 · 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