Colorblindness in the Public Consciousness
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the relationship between the public narrative created by dominant socio-ethnic groups and the people being represented in that discourse through the frame of racial colorblindness. Colorblind ideology pervades American public discourse and negatively affects social perception of race in conflict situations. Although some well-intentioned aspects of colorblind policy allow for racial diversity, colorblind ideology is insufficient to protect the rights of minorities and underprivileged groups. An analysis of the philosophy behind racial colorblindness illustrates how groups reinforce privilege and recognizes the reasons why the ideal of racial colorblindness persists despite flaws and inaccuracies. Three individual statements from key figures in Ferguson demonstrate this racial colorblindness, and at times even specifically mention colorblind ideology. This paper unpacks the cultural understanding of racial colorblindness, recognizes the perceptions and perspectives of the speakers, and demonstrates the problems that emerge when the myth of racial colorblindness is left unchecked.KEYWORDS: racial colorblindness, narrative identity, intergroup communication, Ferguson
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it