MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205343540 · doi:10.17759/chp.2021170401

A Taxonomy of Intergroup Ideologies

2021· article· en· W4205343540 on OpenAlex
Dmitry Grigoryev, John W. Berry

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

VenueCultural-Historical Psychology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersRussian Science Foundation
KeywordsIdeologyTaxonomy (biology)HierarchySociologyDiversity (politics)Cultural diversitySocial psychologyEpistemologyGender studiesPolitical sciencePsychologyPoliticsEcologyAnthropologyLawPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper provides an analysis and a general taxonomy of intergroup ideologies, and presents a list of their indicators. This taxonomy is related to the eight ideologies that were originally outlined in the early works. These ideologies were created on the basis of three dimensions of intercultural relations: cultural maintenance; social participation; and relative power. The taxonomy of intergroup ideologies proposed here follows these three dimensions, which are related to two issues: (i) attitudes towards cultural diversity; and (ii) forms of inclusion of ethnocultural groups in the larger society (including the issue about the hierarchy among groups). It is possible to assess how these issues are solved using four indicators: (1) celebrating differences, (2) status of groups, (3) opportunity for social interaction, and (4) way to ensure the unity of society. Orientations to these indicators make it possible to understand what kind of intergroup ideologies covering intercultural attitudes and intergroup relations exist in countries and describe them.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.208
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0050.000

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 head0.275
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.153 · 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