MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990062806 · doi:10.1037/xge0000723

Language framing shapes dehumanization of groups: A successful replication and extension of Cooley et al. (2017).

2019· article· en· W2990062806 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Psychology General · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiscourse Analysis and Cultural Communication
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDehumanizationPsychologyFraming (construction)Extension (predicate logic)Social psychologyReplication (statistics)Cognitive psychologyLinguisticsCognitive scienceComputer sciencePhilosophyPolitical scienceStatisticsMathematicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this journal, Cooley et al. (2017, Study 3) showed that presenting a social target as a group, as opposed to a group composite (i.e., people in a group) or as an individual, lowered perceptions that the target had a sense of mind (perceived capacity for experience and agency), both of which subsequently predicted lower sympathy for the target. In a direct replication but using double the sample size and preregistered hypotheses and methods, we found results strikingly supportive of the target article. We also expanded their findings, showing the effects (particularly of perceived experience) on willingness to help a target in need. The implications for using short communications to promote social change, particularly in a viral social media world, are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.675
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.388 · 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