An Adaptationist Framework to Examine Intergroup Contact
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Many culturally-plural societies like Canada or Russia seek ways to manage their cultural diversity in order to promote harmony among coexisting groups. The social sciences have long viewed intergroup contact as a beneficial intervention to achieve such harmony. Objective: This paper proposes an adaptationist framework within which to explain how and why intergroup contact contributes to the positive and negative outcomes for individuals who live together in a plural society. We employed this framework in a case study that may serve as an example of the conceptualization and analysis of these issues in international research. Its structural framework included both positive and negative contact and the role of this contact in the distribution of intercultural and psychological adaptation among a large representative sample of the Canadian population. Design: We used a correlational design with a representative sample of Canadians from a survey carried out by Environics in 2019, which was stratified according to the most current population statistics. The total sample was 3,111 persons age 18 and over and included the largest racialised groups in the country. Results: Our main finding was that intergroup contact (both positive and negative) related to both psychological and intercultural adaptation. These findings have implications for improving intercultural relations, especially through the role of positive contact. Conclusion: discrimination) in the near term is an important factor in undermining both forms of adaptation. Nonetheless, while intergroup contact can bring both positive and negative experiences during intercultural interactions, it leads to mutual adaptation over time.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".