Multilevel Intergroup Contact and Antigay Prejudice (Explicit and Implicit)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intergroup contact at the individual level is robustly associated with lower prejudice, but intergroup contact occurs within a greater regional context. Multilevel examinations thus far have focused on interethnic contact, where both individual- and contextual-level contact are associated with lower explicit prejudice. Given that ethnicity is visible, two lingering questions concern whether (a) contextual contact effects only apply to visible outgroups and (b) contextual contact effects predict implicit prejudice in addition to explicit prejudice. In two studies, we tested these questions in the domain of sexual orientation. Individual- and contextual-level contact were simultaneously (uniquely) associated with lower implicit and explicit prejudice: Individuals having more contact with gay men/lesbians were less prejudiced toward gay men and lesbians, and individuals living in areas with greater contact with gay men/lesbians were less prejudiced toward gay men/lesbians. It seems that people need not directly witness intergroup contact in their region for contextual contact effects to occur.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".