MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309667929 · doi:10.1037/amp0001014

Racism and free speech: Commentary on O’Donohue and Fisher (2022).

2022· letter· en· W4309667929 on OpenAlexaff
Lynne M. Jackson

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Psychologist · 2022
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsThe King's UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRacismPsycINFOInjusticePsychologyPrivilege (computing)IndividualismEthical codeSocial psychologyFree speechLawMEDLINEPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

(American Psychological Association, 2017; hereinafter, referred to as the Ethics Code), O'Donohue and Fisher (2022) rely on insufficient evidence of a threat to free speech. They also privilege individualistic over communitarian values and calibrate the risks of racist speech narrowly, and at the individual level. A recent resolution by the American Psychological Association (2021) calls upon all psychologists to "eliminate processes and procedures that perpetuate racial injustice" (para. 29, p. 3). In response to that call, I examine evidence pertinent to the proposal and conclude that the recommended addition to the Ethics Code is not empirically supported and could serve to institutionalize racism. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican PsychologistSame topicSocial and Intergroup PsychologyFrench-language works237,207