The intersection of defendant gender and racialisation in a case of child neglect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the effects of defendant gender (man/woman) and racialisation (Indigenous/White) on Canadian mock jurors’ verdicts in a case of parent-perpetrated child neglect. The potential intensified negative consequences against Indigenous women, produced by the intersectionality of gender and racialisation, were of particular interest. Four hundred and one participants read a mock trial transcript, provided verdicts on two charges, and rated the defendant on a variety of adjectives. Logistic regressions revealed mock jurors were not influenced by the defendant’s gender or the interaction between the defendant’s gender and racialisation. Racialisation had an unpredicted influence, with an Indigenous defendant receiving fewer guilty verdicts. The adjective ratings moderated the effect of gender on verdicts, but not racialisation. Mock jurors were less likely to find a woman guilty when they held positive impressions of her. This study contributes to previous literature that suggests jurors’ verdicts may be influenced by extralegal factors.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".