Book Review of Perry, Gina. (2018). The Lost Boys: Inside Muzafer Sherif's Robbers Cave Experiment. London: Scribe.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At just eleven years old a group of twenty-two boys set out to a remote summer camp where they were unknowingly about to create history and have their lives darkened forever.Gina Perry wrote the book, "The Lost Boys: Inside Muzafer Sherif's Robbers Cave Experiment.", as a way of addressing the preconception Muzafer Sherif and his researchers projected onto the Robbers Cave experiment.Perry with a Ph.D. in psychology, created her intensively researched book on the well-known experiment to append more information including recent discoveries that apply to the study, as well as, how the biases Sherif held affected his research and motivations.She was able to use her expertise to examine the results found in the original experiment which were that groups inflicting hostility towards one another are unable to revert their preconception of one another simply by combining groups.Then, she applied her own observations about prejudice, conflict, and contention to provide more clarity on the situation that occurred.Throughout the book, Perry demonstrates how Sherifs background affected his research towards proving two groups experiencing conflict with each other can reach a compatible level of peace together using interdependence and cooperative tasks.Gina Perry identifies Sherif as a parvenu throughout her book as she explores why his past had so heavily influenced his decisions leading to and during the Robbers Cave experiment.As
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 0.034 |
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".