MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3095498990 · doi:10.5539/ijps.v12n4p1

Race is Still Black and White: Voluntary Racial Phenotypic Change Elicits Meaning Threat and Backlash

2020· article· en· W3095498990 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jordan Seliger, Avi Ben-Zeev

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Psychological Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVignettePsychologyBacklashSocial psychologyRace (biology)EssentialismCategorizationWhite (mutation)Meaning (existential)RacismCognitionGender studiesSociologyEpistemologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We offer evidence that a target who voluntarily changes his/her racial phenotypic features causes perceivers to engage in two-pronged social policing of racial group boundaries: (a) vilifying and disliking the target (cognitive and affective backlash; external policing) (Experiments 1a-1b, 2, & 3) and (b) increasing own racial essentialism, in response to a meaning threat (internal policing) (Experiment 3). In all experiments, participants received a vignette of a protagonist that underwent non-elective surgery (white/Asian, Experiments 1a-1b; white/Black, Experiments 2-3). In the voluntary change condition, the protagonist asks that the surgeon change his/her racial features to resemble that of a different race whereas, in the involuntary change condition the protagonist asks that the surgeon keep his/her racial features intact (Experiment 1: eye shape, Experiment 2: Afrocentric features). Findings supported the predictions and showed a dissociation between similarity and categorization judgments, underscoring the essentialized versus socially constructed nature of beliefs about race.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.185
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Psychological StudiesSame topicSocial and Intergroup PsychologyFrench-language works237,207