MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404369372 · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104696

Black racial phenotypicality: Implications for the #BlackLivesMatter Movement

2024· article· en· W4404369372 on OpenAlexaff
Samantha R. Pejic, Jason C. Deska

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Social Psychology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsToronto Zoo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySocial psychologyMovement (music)Aesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Black individuals with phenotypically African features tend to experience heightened discrimination and mistreatment. The current research examined how racial phenotypicality and prototypicality effect hate crime reporting metrics and beliefs about who evaluators are represented #BlackLivesMatter. Across five studies ( N = 876), results indicate that, compared to low racially phenotypic Black targets, high phenotypic targets were seen as more represented by #BlackLivesMatter (Study 1). When depicted as being the victim of a hate crime, high phenotypic targets were deemed more credible and that it was more appropriate for them to report their victimization on the #BlackLivesMatter website compared to their low phenotypic counterparts by White (Study 2a and 2c) and Black participants (Study 2b and 2c). Black (Study 2b and 2c) and White (Study 3) participants showed differences in perceptions of harm following hate crime victimization. Study 3 extended these findings to a separate manipulation of prototypicality and used a more ecologically valid context. These findings provide support for the problematic exclusivity of narrow prototypes by demonstrating their effect on beliefs about who social justice movements represent, and how they influence beliefs about victim reporting metrics.

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 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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.673
Threshold uncertainty score0.797

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.393 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Social PsychologySame topicSocial and Intergroup PsychologyFrench-language works237,207