When skinfolk are kinfolk: Higher perceived support and acceptance characterize close same‐race (vs. interracial) relationships for people of color
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract People of color cope with racial stigma daily. In this context, support and acceptance from people who share similar racial/ethnic backgrounds can take a special importance. In two studies, using a national U.S. sample ( n = 1618) and a term‐long weekly‐diary design ( n = 103), Black, Latine, and Asian students received more support and acceptance from close same‐race (vs. interracial) relationships. Compared to White participants, Black and Latine participants reported greater support and acceptance from their relationships. Furthermore, greater support and acceptance in same‐race relationships predicted greater flourishing and lower depressive affect, even after controlling for support and acceptance in interracial relationships. These results underscore the importance of same‐race relationships for people of color in the U.S. In conjunction with practices addressing structural barriers, opportunities to connect with same‐race peers can nurture the flourishment of people of color in the U.S. and possibly other contexts in which they are stigmatized.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it