MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2460757155 · doi:10.1002/ejsp.2199

The good, the bad and the central of group identification: Evidence of a U‐shaped quadratic relation between in‐group affect and identity centrality

2016· article· en· W2460757155 on OpenAlexafffund
Frank Kachanoff, Renate Ysseldyk, Donald M. Taylor, Roxane de la Sablonnière, Jonathan Crush

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Social Psychology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalBalsillie School of International AffairsCarleton UniversityMcGill University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsCentralityPsychologySocial psychologyConceptualizationIdentity (music)Affect (linguistics)Social identity theoryGroup (periodic table)Ethnic groupSocial groupSociologyMathematicsCommunicationCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The present research investigates the interrelation between two widely studied dimensions of social group identity—in‐group affect and centrality. Specifically, we test the validity of a quadratic curvilinear relation between in‐group affect and identity centrality. We propose that group members who feel either decidedly positive affect or decidedly negative affect towards their group are more likely to feel that their identity is a central component of their self‐concept relative to group members with neutral affect. We find evidence for a quadratic relation between in‐group affect and identity centrality with respect to people's cultural identity ( N = 512), ethnic identity ( N = 462), religious identity ( N = 61, N = 384) and racial identity ( N = 3600, N = 2400). Theoretical and practical implications for the measurement and conceptualization of group identification are discussed. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.487
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.331 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Social PsychologySame topicSocial and Intergroup PsychologyFrench-language works237,207