When do Intraminority Antagonists work together?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two major frameworks to intraminority solidarity, or solidarity between minority groups, have emerged: 1) stigma-based solidarity (SBS), or solidarity formed based on a shared identity of marginalization and 2) critical-consciousness (CC), or an awareness of interlocking systems of oppression (e.g., drawing similarities between structural racism and homophobia). Most of this work has focused on changing attitudes in lab settings and has ignored intraminority antagonists, or what we propose as groups who have negative relations (e.g., Jews and Muslims). To examine these two pathways, we will recruit Jewish (Study 1; N = 330) and LGBTQ+ participants (Study 2; N = 330) from US and Canada on Prolific to complete a survey. Participants will be screened for their support of the Palestinian movement. Participants will complete the critical consciousness scale, answer questions on the perceptions of shared marginalization with Palestinians and report their collective action and attitudes towards Palestinians. We expect CC, or at least one of its sub-dimensions, to be related to both attitudes and behaviors compared to stigma-based solidarity
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 | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.056 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.147 | 0.106 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".