Femininity, LGBTQ Identity, and Paranormal Belief: Doing Gender and Religious Individualism
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
How are gender and sexuality related to belief in the paranormal? Study 1 uses a probability sample of New Jersey residents (n = 813) to run an experiment in which respondents reported their level of belief in astrology, ghostly hauntings, the Jersey Devil, and two political conspiracy theories. Half of respondents were primed to think about their gender prior to answering these questions. Women, but not men, who were primed were substantially more likely to report belief in all three paranormal items, but not the political conspiracies. LGB women were more likely than their straight counterparts to report belief in ghostly hauntings and the Jersey Devil. To confirm these findings, Study 2 used a probability sample of the entire US (n = 806) and included a broader measure of LGBTQ identity. Similarly to the first study, LGBTQ people were more likely to believe in astrology and ghostly hauntings. While the mechanisms behind these relationships require further study, prior work leads us to believe that “doing” femininity for some women involves reporting belief in (or being less likely to reject) the paranormal, whereas LGBTQ people are more likely to report paranormal belief due to social unconventionality and religious individualism.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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