Between solidarity and betrayal: how differences in societal acknowledgement, group position and expectations inform intergroup relations in the context of collective victimization / <i>Entre solidaridad y traición: la influencia de las diferencias en reconocimiento social, posición grupal y expectativas sobre las relaciones intergrupales en el contexto de la victimización colectiva</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social psychological research on collective victimization and intergroup relations often focuses on attitudes towards perpetrator groups and a limited range of collective victimization beliefs. Additionally, it is often ahistorical and decontextualized, not differentiating historical from ongoing victimization, or how groups’ present-day power, privilege and differential policies indicating double standards in how oppressed groups are treated affect collective victimization beliefs. Addressing these limitations, this paper reports findings from focus group interviews among four ethnic minority communities in the US (Armenian and Jewish Americans, Burundian and Nepali-Bhutanese refugees), examining how varying temporal distance to collective victimization, different levels of power and privilege and unequal societal recognition shape which intergroup experiences people expressed regarding their group’s victimization. Reflexive thematic analysis identified two overarching groups of seemingly opposite themes: Experiences of Acknowledgement — and/or Denial (three themes) and Intergroup Solidarity/Alliances — and/or Outgroup Vigilance/Betrayal (four themes). These themes revealed the importance of relations with third parties (including other minority groups) and the influence of societal processes including inequalities in power and societal acknowledgement of different minority groups’ collective victimization, which sometimes undermined the potential for solidarity between victimized communities.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".