MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6925156959 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/c4jyn

Implicit Bias against South Asians, Muslims and Sikhs: A PRISMA scoping review

2021· other· en· W6925156959 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · 2021
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMicrobial Natural Products and Biosynthesis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImplicit biasImplicit-association testEmpirical researchKey (lock)Empirical evidenceGender biasImplicit personality theory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A scoping review will be conducted to systematically and transparently map the research that has been gathered in this specific area by identifying key concepts, potential gaps in the research; and the types of evidence available (Colquhoun et al., 2014). The following overarching research questions were formulated to guide our search strategies: What is known from the existing literature about implicit bias against South Asians, Muslims and Sikhs and how much empirical research has been conducted on implicit bias against South Asians, Muslims and Sikhs?

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.177
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.358
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.177
Threshold uncertainty score0.935

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1770.358
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.008
Bibliometrics0.0380.033
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0100.009
Open science0.0040.010
Research integrity0.0070.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints)→Same topicMicrobial Natural Products and Biosynthesis→French-language works237,207→