Black or White? It depends where you work: organization type influences how a racially ambiguous person is racially categorized
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
Humans regularly categorize one another based on race, with these categorizations influencing how people are viewed and treated. Racial categorizations are not always accurate, however, especially for those who are multiracial. We examined how information about a racially ambiguous man’s occupation (specifically, the person’s role [leader vs. employee] and the type of organization [Fortune 500 company vs. non-profit]) may influence how they are racially categorized and potential downstream consequences. Although relatively weak in one study but stronger in the other, a racially ambiguous man working in a Fortune 500 (vs. non-profit) was perceived as relatively more White. This pattern was present for participants higher in social dominance orientation. Findings regarding downstream consequences were less clear but suggested that when a racially ambiguous man was viewed as more White, they were evaluated less positively by those lower in social dominance orientation, possibly due to perceptions that the man did not obtain their position based on individual merit.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it