MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405100174 · doi:10.1525/collabra.126234

Implicit Ideologies: Do Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation Predict Implicit Attitudes?

2024· article· en· W4405100174 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCollabra Psychology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council
KeywordsSocial dominance orientationAuthoritarianismIdeologyDominance (genetics)Social psychologyRight wingPsychologyOrientation (vector space)Political sciencePoliticsDemocracyLawGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many social and political attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours can be predicted by Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA; a preference for authority and tradition) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO; a preference for social hierarchies and inequality). These two constructs have predominantly been studied in the context of self-reported (explicit) attitudes, so the usefulness of RWA and SDO to predict individuals’ implicit attitudes remains relatively unclear and understudied. The current research is a Registered Report that uses a large dataset collected as part of Project Implicit to test the predictive power of RWA and SDO for implicit and explicit attitudes toward topics relating to authority, tradition and hierarchies (i.e., concepts most relevant to RWA and SDO). The findings of the current study suggest that RWA and SDO are in fact predictive of some implicit attitudes that are in line with the RWA and SDO ideologies, as well as most corresponding explicit attitudes.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.654
Threshold uncertainty score0.957

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.366 · 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