MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3201725986 · doi:10.1097/nmd.0000000000001405

Discrimination and Sympathy for Violent Radicalization Among College Students in Quebec (Canada)

2021· article· en· W3201725986 on OpenAlexaffabout
Diana Miconi, Rochelle L. Frounfelker, Tessa Whiteley, Abdelwahed Mekki‐Berrada, Cécile Rousseau

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSympathyReligiosityPsychologySadnessRadicalizationContext (archaeology)ModerationAngerSocial psychologyPolitical scienceTerrorism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: The present study examines the moderating role of total, intrinsic, and extrinsic religiosity in the relation between perceived discrimination and sympathy for violent radicalization (VR) among college students in Quebec, Canada. A total of 931 students responded to an online questionnaire and were included in this study. Linear mixed-effects models were conducted to account for the clustered nature of the data, and moderation was assessed via interaction analysis using cross-product terms in the models. Findings indicated that both intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity had a protective role in the link between perceived discrimination and sympathy for VR and buffered the effects of sadness in response to discrimination on sympathy for VR, but not the effects of anger in response to discrimination. These results provide evidence of the protective role of religiosity in Canada, a social context characterized by an increase in religious discrimination, but which also supports religious diversity.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Nervous and Mental DiseaseSame topicReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207