Social Framework Testimony and Race Salience: Examining Bias Correction in the Current Context
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
This juror-simulation study tested whether expert testimony about police relations with Black/Indigenous persons would mitigate potential verdict discrepancies by making race a salient issue, and whether perceived police legitimacy would predict perceptions of race salience and/or effectiveness of the salience manipulation. Jury-eligible community members (N = 392) read a trial transcript in which the defendant claims self-defense for the killing of a police officer. We manipulated defendant race (Black/Indigenous/White) and the presence of expert testimony in which a sociologist described the experience of racialized persons with police. Participants provided verdicts, rated perceptions that racial issues featured prominently in the trial (i.e., perceived race salience), and completed a police legitimacy measure. Results revealed non-significant effects of defendant race and expert testimony on verdicts. Those higher in perceptions of police legitimacy had a greater likelihood of voting guilty and less favourable attitudes toward the expert, with the opposite pattern for those higher in perceived race salience.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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