MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7029505893

“Invisible” Black Women Being Denied, Passed Over, and Ignored as a Function of Racism (not Sexism) Among White People

2023· other· en· W7029505893 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueBrock University Digital Repository (Brock University) · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychology, Coaching, and Therapy
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRacismPopulationPsychometrics of racismBlack womenWhite (mutation)Context (archaeology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is considerable debate in psychology about the extent to which Black women (vs. Black men or White women) are targeted for discrimination, especially as a function of racism/sexism. To gain greater insight into the perpetration of racial and gender-based discrimination against Black women, Study 1 (N = 431; White MTurk workers) considered whether individual endorsement of sexism/racism moderates healthcare discrimination against Black or East-Asian (vs. White) women. Participants completed measures of modern racism/hostile sexism before being randomly assigned to make healthcare recommendations regarding a Black, White, or East-Asian female target. Collapsing across individual differences, there was not significantly more opposition to recommending healthcare resources for Black or East-Asian (vs. White) women. However, COVID-19 and general physical-health discrimination against Black (vs. White) women significantly increased as individual endorsement of racism increased. Furthermore, participants higher (vs. lower) in endorsement of racism were more opposed to recommending healthcare resources for Black (but not for White) women. Individual differences did not moderate any form of healthcare discrimination against East-Asian (vs. White) women. 
\n Study 2 (N = 480; White male MTurk workers) considered whether individual endorsement of sexism or racism moderated STEM-workforce discrimination against Black women (vs. Black men or White women). Participants completed prejudice measures before being randomly assigned to make hiring and promotion timeline recommendations for a Black female, Black male, White female, or White male target. Collapsing across individual differences, Black women (vs. White women or Black men) were not deemed less hirable or needing longer promotion timelines. Additionally, individual differences in racism did not significantly moderate STEM-workforce discrimination against Black (vs. White) women, but a marginally significant trend revealed more hiring opposition against Black women as racism increased. However, STEM-workforce discrimination against Black women (vs. Black men) was greater among participants higher (vs. lower) in endorsement of racism but not sexism. Furthermore, participants higher (vs. lower) in endorsement of racism were more opposed to hiring Black women (but not Black men or White women) and recommended longer promotion timelines for Black women (but not for Black men). This thesis concludes with a discussion of theoretical implications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.223
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrock University Digital Repository (Brock University)Same topicPsychology, Coaching, and TherapyFrench-language works237,207