The social psychology of dominance and counter-dominance: The role of political complexity evaluation in legitimizing moral vs. hegemonic intervention in protests against Authoritarian government
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Political Psychology of Belief Systems, promises a wide variety of innovative and inspiring research presented by junior and senior scholars from all over the world.I am pleased to announce that this year the Junior Scholars Committee (JSC) has organized a number of exciting events, which we hope you will attend.On the first day of the conference we begin our events with the JSC Mentoring Lunch on Friday July 4 at 11:30 AM.JSC Mentoring Program coordinators Gary Smith and Laura Taylor have arranged this year's event.Those who registered for the mentoring program will experience a one-on-one interaction between junior scholars and senior scholars in the field.Mentees are encouraged to discuss their research interests and projects to get specific advice for their scholarly work.We hope that the mentors and the mentees keep in touch during and after the conference.On the second day of the conference the JSC Professional Development coordinators Gizem Arıkan and Sanne Rijkhoff will hold two exciting roundtables focusing on professional development.The roundtables are intended to initiate a dialogue between junior and senior scholars.The first roundtable will be on the Job Market (Seeking and Securing Jobs for Junior Political Psychologists) on Saturday, July 5 at 10:00am.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".