MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388730293 · doi:10.1177/01461672231207952

Biased Beliefs About White Releasees’ Sensitivity to Social Pain

2023· article· en· W4388730293 on OpenAlexafffund
Samantha R. Pejic, Jason C. Deska

Bibliographic record

VenuePersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyPerceptionSocial perceptionSocial psychologyEthnic groupPain perceptionPopulationMedicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The accurate perception of others' pain is a prerequisite to provide needed support. However, social pain perception is prone to biases. Multiple characteristics of individuals bias both physical and social pain judgments (e.g., ethnicity and facial structure). The current work extends this research to a chronically stigmatized population: released prisoners (i.e., releasees). Recognizing the large United States releasee rates and the significant role support plays in successful re-integration, we conducted four studies testing whether people have biased judgments of White male releasees' sensitivity to social pain. Compared with the noncriminally involved, people judged releasees as less sensitive to social pain in otherwise identical situations (Studies 1a-3), an effect that was mediated by perceived life hardship (Study 2). Finally, judging releasees' as relatively insensitive to social pain undermined perceivers' social support judgments (Study 3). The downstream consequences of these findings on re-integration success are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePersonality and Social Psychology BulletinSame topicCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisFrench-language works237,207