MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4245530311 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14638413.v1

Philosophy and Interracial Dialogue

2021· preprint· en· W4245530311 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert Murray

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRacial formation theoryGender studiesIdeologyPoliticsNarrativeRacismPrivilege (computing)SociologyPolitical scienceDisadvantageAffirmative actionDisadvantagedContext (archaeology)Race (biology)CriminologyLawHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

[para. 1]: "That race has been an important factor in the life chances of people in North America is plain. In the past the dominant racial groups in Canada and the United States systematically controlled the important social institutions to the disadvantage of racial minorities. This is evident from the direct or indirect roles that colonization, slavery, racial segregation, selective protection of the law, selective employment, selective educational opportunities, selective political opportunities, and the like played in the history of North America. Such marginalizing practices were widely supported, sometimes even by unions, women’s groups, or supreme courts that helped the otherwise disadvantaged.1As well, the dominant racial groups controlled the historical, cultural, and national narratives to the disadvantage of racial minorities. From the perspective of the dominant race, racial privilege and marginalization were either accepted as brute facts or rationalized by ideologies that construed racial minorities as diminished forms of humanity on grounds of their biology or culture. Such social norms provided a racialized context in which dominant narratives ascribed possibilities, capabilities, and degrees of moral worth on the basis of race. As a matter of historical fact, despite living under constitutions derived from universal, egalitarian principles taken to be self-evident truths, the life chances of members of racial minorities were diminished by interlocking barriers of discrimination systematically formed by the dominant racial group. At the same time, members of the dominant racial group were privileged to varying degrees because they did not face the discriminatory barriers faced by members of racial minorities and because group advantages accumulate over generations and automatically advantage their new members. On account of their different experiences, the privileged racial groups and the marginalized racial groups in Canada and the United States developed conflicting perspectives on the workings and fairness of the nations in which they now struggle to live under shared citizenship."

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0210.051
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics→French-language works237,207→