Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intergroup contact is arguably the prejudice reduction intervention with the most existing empirical support. However, recent meta-analyses of experimental contact interventions find signs of publication and reporting biases. To mitigate such bias, I carry out a meta-analysis of 41 preregistered contact experiments, considering only treatment effects on preregistered primary outcomes. I find that ( a ) the average effects of intergroup contact are smaller than indicated by previous findings, at roughly one-tenth of a standard deviation; ( b ) the subset of in-person interventions that satisfy Allport's four desirable scope conditions (e.g., common goals) are no more effective; and ( c ) generalization is limited: Contact is more effective at changing behavior and attitudes toward people met than toward the outgroup as a whole. I offer suggestions for how researchers might make progress on the problem of generalization through careful measurement of its extent and the consideration of moderating factors beyond those emphasized by Allport.
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 | 0.019 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 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".