Interfaith friendships among emerging adulthood in Surabaya: The role of tolerance and stigma consciousness
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
Forming quality interfaith friendships is not impossible. Additionally, our society has become accustomed to differences. However, a clear explanation for the difficulty of forming such friendships has yet to be established. This study aimed to investigate the influence of tolerance and stigma consciousness on the quality of interfaith friendships. The research involved 400 respondents aged 18-25, comprising 200 Muslim respondents with at least one non-Muslim friend and 200 non-Muslim respondents with at least one Muslim friend. The quality of friendship was evaluated using the McGill Friendship Questionnaire (MFQ), while tolerance and stigma consciousness were measured using the Tolerance Index Questionnaire (TI) and Stigma Consciousness Questionnaire (SCQ), respectively. Multiple regression analysis was utilized to test the research hypothesis. The study results indicate that tolerance and stigma consciousness are significant factors in determining the quality of interfaith friendships. Individuals with tolerance and low levels of stigma consciousness are more likely to form quality interfaith friendships.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it