MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3039693550 · doi:10.1177/0959354320925176

Why mainstream research will not end scientific racism in psychology

2020· article· en· W3039693550 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew S. Winston

Bibliographic record

VenueTheory & Psychology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAcademic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRacismMainstreamCriticismSociologyMoralityPsychologyEpistemologySocial psychologyPsychoanalysisGender studiesLawPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mainstream research on racial essentialization may be valuable in the fight against racism, as Held (2020) suggested. I argue that the production of scientific racism in the literature of psychology is unlikely to be affected by such research. Assertions by psychologists of Black people’s average inferiority in brain size, intelligence, and morality have persisted for over 100 years despite repeated, careful critiques. Recent presentations of these old and discredited claims have sidestepped the fundamental criticism that they rest on essentialized racial categories. The survival of scientific racism in mainstream psychology journals should be understood as a community project with its own Weltanschauung of “racial progress.”

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.006
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.007

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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.337 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations53
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheory & PsychologySame topicAcademic and Historical Perspectives in PsychologyFrench-language works237,207