The Effects of Race, Religion, and Religiosity on Attitudes towards Transracial Adoption
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the effects of race, religion, and religiosity on attitudes towards transracial adoption (TRA) while controlling for both sociodemographic and ideological factors. Utilizing data from the 2005 Baylor Religion Survey (N = 1721), the hypothesis was tested that Blacks, Protestants, and the more religious, would be less favorable towards TRA than non-Blacks, non-Protestants, and the less religious after controlling for both sociodemographic and ideological factors . The analyses show no relationship between race and attitudes towards TRA. Of the religious groups considered, Protestants are the least supportive of TRA, while religiosity is positively correlated with approval of TRA. A number of sociodemographic and ideological factors are also identified as significant predictors of one’s approval of TRA. Several explanations are offered as to what factors unique to Protestantism are influencing Protestants to be less supportive of TRA. While findings suggest that reported attitudes towards TRA are becoming more favorable among the general public, further research is needed to clarify Protestants’ less favorable attitudes towards interracial family relationships, TRA included.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".