MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7155521201 · doi:10.1353/ces.2025.a989106

The Control Conditions in our Heads: Leveraging Open-Ended Questions for Experimental Studies of Prejudice

2025· article· en· W7155521201 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian ethnic studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Power and Status Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrejudice (legal term)Identity (music)Interpretation (philosophy)Control (management)PerceptionComplement (music)Survey data collection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Experiments have emerged as key tools to assess Experiments have emerged as key tools to assess how identity markers influence attitudes and behaviours, either by cuing particular considerations or activating pre-existing biases. Vignettes and conjoint designs are especially popular, enabling researchers to isolate the effects of racial, ethnic, or migration cues. Yet these experiments rarely interrogate what respondents assume absent identity cues—that is, the “control conditions” in their minds. Using data from a nationally representative survey in Canada (N=861), we explore how open-ended survey responses illuminate underlying mental schema. We analyse qualitative interpretations of baseline vignettes, without identity information, describing a person experiencing hunger or being repeatedly stopped by police. The analysis reveals how people ascribe race, class, age, parental status, and other attributes, even absent cues. The findings offer insight into the mental templates that shape perception and judgment. Incorporating open-ended questions into survey design, we argue, enriches analysis of prejudice and clarifies interpretive baselines. The technique can complement experimental methods, nuance interpretation of control conditions, and point to new identity markers for future studies. It is also scalable, increasingly feasible with online surveys and large-language modelling. This helps bridge divides between experimental and qualitative research traditions in the study of race, ethnicity, and migration. Résumé: Les expériences sont devenues des outils essentiels pour évaluer la manière dont les marqueurs identitaires influencent les attitudes et comportements, soit en suscitant certaines considérations, soit en activant des biais préexistants. Les vignettes et les dispositifs de type conjoint sont particulièrement populaires, car ils permettent aux chercheurs d’isoler les effets des indices raciaux, ethniques ou liés à la migration. Pourtant, ces expériences interrogent rarement ce que les répondants présument en l’absence de tout indice identitaire — c’est-à-dire les « conditions de contrôle » qu’ils ont en tête. À partir d’un échantillon représentatif de la population au Canada (N = 861), nous examinons comment les réponses ouvertes permettent de mettre en évidence les schémas mentaux sous-jacents. Nous analysons les interprétations qualitatives de vignettes de référence, dépourvues d’informations identitaires, décrivant une personne souffrant de la faim ou étant fréquemment interpellée par la police. L’analyse révèle que les répondants attribuent spontanément une race, une classe sociale, un âge, un statut parental et d’autres caractéristiques, même en l’absence d’indices explicites. Ces résultats offrent un aperçu des schémas mentaux qui façonnent la perception et le jugement. Nous soutenons que l’intégration de questions ouvertes dans la conception des sondages enrichit l’analyse des préjugés et clarifie les bases interprétatives. Cette technique peut compléter les méthodes expérimentales, nuancer l’interprétation des conditions de contrôle et révéler de nouveaux marqueurs identitaires pour de futures études. Elle est également évolutive, de plus en plus réalisable grâce aux sondages en ligne et aux grands modèles de langage. Cela contribue à combler les divisions entre les traditions de recherche expérimentales et qualitatives dans l’étude de la race, de l’ethnicité et de la migration.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.339 · 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