Picture a scientist: classification images of scientists are perceived as White, male, and socially inept
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Stereotypes and biases toward social categories are often reflected in mental representations of faces. The current study used a two-phase reverse correlation procedure to visualize mental representations of the faces of a scientist, a hero, a genius, and a person. Methods: In the first phase, 20 participants completed four blocks of a two-image forced-choice task. In each block, they selected which face from a pair resembled one of the four categories. The images they selected were averaged to create classification images (CIs), which serve as proxy images for their mental representations of the four categories. In the second phase of the study, 251 naive participants rated the CIs based on various valence and demographic characteristics. Results: We found that the scientist image was rated predominantly as White and male, which reflects stereotypes about who pursues scientific careers. The scientist image was also rated more negatively than the other CIs on several characteristics, which may indicate negative biases toward scientists as unsociable, poor communicators, and incompetent authority figures, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Discussion: These findings deepen our understanding of how social categories are represented and demonstrate how the CI method can reveal stereotypes and attitudes related to these social categories.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".