Double Jeopardy Hypothesis and Hiring Bias Against Indigenous Men with Criminal Records
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous men with criminal records experience compounded exclusion in the labor market due to intersecting stigmas of race and criminal history, a phenomenon explained by the Double Jeopardy Hypothesis. This paper explores these dynamics through three experimental studies examining hiring biases against Indigenous applicants compared to their Black and White counterparts. Results reveal that Indigenous men with criminal records are disproportionately under selected for employment opportunities, even in comparison to Black applicants with similar histories. Techniques like name anonymization, revised language describing criminal records, and ban-the-box policies were found to be ineffective for Indigenous applicants, contrasting with their success for other groups. These findings highlight how compounded disadvantages uniquely exclude Indigenous men with criminal records from equitable labor market access, reinforcing systemic barriers. This research contributes to the limited empirical literature on Indigenous peoples with criminal records and employment and underscores the need for tailored, equity-focused interventions informed by the Double Jeopardy Hypothesis.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".