Mechanisms upholding the persistence of stigma across 100 years of historical text
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today, many social groups face negative stereotypes. Is such negativity a stable feature of society and, if so, what mechanisms maintain stability both within and across group targets? Answering these theoretically and practically important questions requires data on dozens of group stereotypes examined simultaneously over historical and societal scales, which is only possible through recent advances in Natural Language Processing. Across two studies, we use word embeddings from millions of English-language books over 100 years (1900-2000) and extract stereotypes for 58 stigmatized groups. Study 1 examines aggregate, societal-level trends in stereotype negativity by averaging across these groups. Results reveal striking persistence in aggregate negativity (no meaningful slope), suggesting that society maintains a stable level of negative stereotypes. Study 2 introduces and tests a new framework identifying potential mechanisms upholding stereotype negativity over time. We find evidence of two key sources of this aggregate persistence: within-group "reproducibility" (e.g., stereotype negativity can be maintained by using different traits with the same underlying meaning) and across-group "replacement" (e.g., negativity from one group is transferred to other related groups). These findings provide novel historical evidence of mechanisms upholding stigmatization in society and raise new questions regarding the possibility of future stigma change.
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 | 0.004 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".