MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390838279 · doi:10.1080/00221309.2023.2300145

Don’t worry, they get the idea: instructions have no impact on dehumanization ratings on the Ascent of Human Scale

2024· article· en· W4390838279 on OpenAlex
Devin L. Johnson, Sukhvinder S. Obhi

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of General Psychology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDehumanizationPsychologySocial psychologyScale (ratio)Affect (linguistics)WorryCognitive psychologyCommunicationAnxietyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A common method for assessing blatant dehumanization asks participants to rate "how evolved" they think members of various social groups are using the Ascent of Human scale (AOH) that transitions in stages from a crawling ape to a fully upright modern human. However, little is known about how task instructions affect participant ratings. In this pre-registered study, participants saw alternative forms of instruction including the traditional instructions emphasizing "evolution", a prompt without any reference to evolution, and a prompt that clearly explained that the scale assesses dehumanization. Instruction type had no effect on dehumanization ratings on the AOH scale. These results support the idea that the AOH scale is a robust means of assessing blatant dehumanization.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.403
Threshold uncertainty score0.756

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.369 · 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