Assimilated or the boundary of Whiteness expanded? A boundary model of group belonging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 19th century U.S., European ethnics were considered dark-skinned and working-class. By the 1950s, they were re-categorized as White Americans. Assimilation theory suggests that Europeans' intergroup interactions such as socioeconomic attainments and intermarriage with Anglo-Saxon Whites led to their assimilation and racial re-categorization. The theory anticipates that class mobility translates into re-categorization into Whiteness such that non-Europeans' upward mobility will also propel them into Whiteness. Despite non-Europeans' successful intergroup interactions, their assimilation and belonging is still up for debate. If both Europeans and non-Europeans have participated in similar rates of intergroup interactions, which other factor has determined their differential assimilation outcomes? In response, we conceptualize a boundary model for understanding group belonging. To do so, we distinguish between symbolic and phenotype or somatic race. The former provides and attaches meanings to soma. This boundary model comprises the combined effects of individuals' intergroup interactions and majority groups' symbolic racial boundary expansion-contraction. Assimilation outcome occurs only when majority groups' boundary expands to recognize intergroup interactions as meaningful and to include newcomers as racial group insiders. We revisit the case of European ethnics to show that the symbolic boundary of Whiteness expanded to re-categorize them as assimilated Whites. Accordingly, we formulate four hypotheses about the possibilities of re-categorizing groups in and out of a master category such as Whiteness.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".