MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Secondary Transfer Effect of Intergroup Contact

2017· other· en· W2943021725 on OpenAlexaff
Simon Lolliot

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Encyclopedia of Intercultural Communication · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyOutgroupContact theorySocial psychologyContact hypothesisIngroups and outgroupsPrejudice (legal term)AnxietyGeneralizationOperationalizationModerationCausality (physics)Perspective (graphical)MediationDevelopmental psychologyEpistemologySociologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This entry provides an overview of the state of the research programme for the secondary transfer effect of contact. Rooted in Gordon Allport's contact hypothesis—that intergroup contact will reduce prejudice—the secondary transfer effect of contact describes the process whereby contact with one outgroup reduces prejudice towards different outgroups. To date, four mediating mechanisms of the secondary transfer effect have contributed to our growing theoretical and empirical understanding of this effect. These mediators include attitude generalization, deprovincialization, intergroup anxiety, and perspective‐taking. The mediating mechanisms of attitude generalization, intergroup anxiety, and perspective‐taking all enjoy consistent support, whereas the deprovincialization hypothesis has, to date, received mixed evidence, partially owing to its narrow operationalization. Further theoretical development of the deprovincialization hypothesis is warranted. Similarly, more experimental and multiwave longitudinal research is needed to solidify both the underlying causality of the secondary transfer effect and to test the latest set of moderation and mediation hypotheses.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.178

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0530.002

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Encyclopedia of Intercultural CommunicationSame topicSocial and Intergroup PsychologyFrench-language works237,207