{ "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-12T10:26:59Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 26.7, "error": "Reading additional input from stdin...\nOpenAI Codex v0.153.4\n--------\nworkdir: R:\\02_PROJECTS\\02_Meta_Models_Platforms\\Ver.cy\\current\\thing-registry-backlog\nmodel: gpt-6-astra\nprovider: openai\napproval: never\nsandbox: read-only\nreasoning effort: none\nreasoning summaries: none\nsession id: 01a09526-c7f6-7063-b53b-03dedb2f5a1f\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: in-group favoritism\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: XCT.QLT\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 1001 things:\n# Batch 043: ", "usd": 0.0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 77.6, "error": "Reading additional input from stdin...\nOpenAI Codex v0.153.4\n--------\nworkdir: R:\\02_PROJECTS\\02_Meta_Models_Platforms\\Ver.cy\\current\\thing-registry-backlog\nmodel: gpt-6-astra\nprovider: openai\napproval: never\nsandbox: read-only\nreasoning effort: none\nreasoning summaries: none\nsession id: 01a09526-c800-7380-9a92-571aae7218fa\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: in-group favoritism\nRegistry id: vr.tr.in-group-favoritism\nPlane / domain: XCT / XCT.QLT\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this " } }, "enrichment": { "pass": 3, "engine": "claude", "producedAt": "2026-10-06T12:00:00Z", "ingestedAt": "2026-10-06T08:41:16+00:00", "fields": [ "agent_conduct", "ethics", "failure_modes_and_hazards", "owners" ] }, "gate": { "passed": true, "version": "1.0", "at": "2026-10-07T10:10:32+00:00", "evidence": [ "completeness 1.00", "sense: Wikidata description", "2 live sources", "review by codex: pass" ] } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q6008637", "registryId": "vr.tr.in-group-favoritism", "name": "in-group favoritism", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "XCT.QLT" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q6008637/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.in-group-favoritism", "name": "in-group favoritism", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognize, assess and respond to preferential treatment or evaluation of people because they are perceived as members of an actor's own group.", "definition": "In-group favoritism is the tendency to evaluate or treat members of a group to which one belongs more favorably than comparable members of other groups.", "scope_statement": "This model owns the identification and assessment of in-group favoritism episodes and patterns, including perceived membership, comparative advantage, alternative explanations, measurement choices and context-specific responses; it separates observed disparities from claims about motives or unfairness.", "in_scope": [ "The actor, perceived in-group, comparison group and situation in which group membership becomes relevant", "Preferential judgments, allocations, assistance, trust or opportunities associated with shared group membership", "Competing definitions based on relative preference, unequal behavior or group-based motivation", "Operationalizations and baselines used to identify and measure favoritism", "Evidence distinguishing membership effects from relevant differences between recipients", "Responses to favoritism and assessment of their effects" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Out-group hostility or dehumanization without evidence of preferential treatment of an in-group", "Group identity formation and belonging except where needed to establish the relevant membership relation", "General interpersonal liking or reciprocity without an established group-membership component", "Institutional inequality as a whole, beyond the contribution of identified favoritism practices", "Legal determinations of discrimination", "Nepotism, patronage and cronyism as complete concepts, although particular instances may overlap" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "An identifiable actor perceives recipients as sharing a group membership; similarity identified only by an observer does not establish the actor's in-group.", "An in-group receives a relative advantage in a specified judgment or action against an explicit comparator or baseline.", "A disparity alone establishes a candidate pattern; attributing it to shared membership requires evidence addressing relevant alternative explanations.", "In-group advantage can occur without active harm or hostility toward an out-group; these must be measured separately.", "Whether a membership-based advantage violates a norm is assessed separately from whether the advantage exists." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Definition adopted", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Relative evaluative preference; differential treatment; membership-caused preference; another explicitly stated definition", "why_it_matters": "Determines what evidence qualifies as an instance and whether motive or causation must be established." }, { "name": "Perceived membership relation", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Actor, recipient, group, membership basis and evidence of the actor's perception", "why_it_matters": "Favoritism concerns the actor's perceived in-group, which may differ from formal or externally assigned categories." }, { "name": "Membership salience", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Demonstrated as salient; plausibly salient; not demonstrated; unknown, with situation and time", "why_it_matters": "Shared membership may exist without influencing the decision under examination." }, { "name": "Preference expression", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Evaluation; allocation; assistance; trust; selection; leniency; information sharing", "why_it_matters": "An attitudinal preference and a consequential allocation require different evidence and responses." }, { "name": "Comparative advantage", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "In-group minus comparison-group outcome, using the task's units and stated direction, denominator and uncertainty", "why_it_matters": "Makes the size and direction of the observed preference interpretable." }, { "name": "Baseline", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Equal treatment; relevant-criteria-adjusted treatment; neutral condition; within-actor comparison; another justified baseline", "why_it_matters": "The same allocation can yield different interpretations under different baselines." }, { "name": "Membership attribution", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Untested; association observed; alternatives partly addressed; causal evidence available; mixed evidence", "why_it_matters": "Prevents an observed group disparity from being treated automatically as proof of a group-membership effect." }, { "name": "In-group benefit and out-group cost", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Separate changes from a stated baseline for each group, in task-specific units", "why_it_matters": "Distinguishes added support for insiders from withheld benefits or imposed costs on outsiders." }, { "name": "Applicable obligation", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Actor role linked to an explicit impartiality, care, loyalty or allocation rule", "why_it_matters": "Supports a contextual judgment of permissibility without defining every group preference as wrongful." } ], "affordances": [ "Assess whether an episode meets an explicitly chosen definition of in-group favoritism.", "Map the actor's perceived group boundaries and relevant comparison groups.", "Compare judgments or outcomes while recording baseline choices and alternative explanations.", "Separate in-group benefit, out-group disadvantage and evidence of hostility.", "Select an authorized response suited to the decision context and evaluate whether it reduces unjustified membership effects." ], "agent_conduct": { "may": [ "Explain in-group favoritism and the research evidence behind it.", "Help organizations check their own decisions for signs of it at their request." ], "must_not": [ "Favour or disfavour people in its own outputs because of group membership.", "Use the concept to label a specific person or group as biased without evidence.", "Exploit in-group loyalty to manipulate users into decisions or purchases.", "Treat group bias as inevitable to excuse discrimination." ], "requires_human": [ "Accusing a named person or organization of bias in hiring, lending or justice." ] }, "ethics": { "considerations": [ "In-group favoritism drives discrimination in hiring, lending and justice.", "Naming bias carelessly can stigmatise people unfairly." ], "affected_parties": [ "Members of out-groups", "Applicants and defendants", "Employees" ] }, "owners": { "steward": "Nobody owns it; it is a pattern of human behaviour.", "master_systems": [] }, "failure_modes_and_hazards": [ "Decision systems trained on biased data can reproduce favoritism at scale.", "Unchecked favoritism in teams leads to exclusion and conflict." ], "what_it_is_for": [ "In-group favoritism is studied in social psychology and examined in recruitment, resource allocation, teamwork and institutional decision making.", "The concept helps assess whether shared group membership influences treatment beyond relevant differences in circumstances or qualifications." ], "standards_and_regulation": [ "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, enacted by the United States Congress, applies when workplace favoritism constitutes employment discrimination based on a protected characteristic within its scope.", "The Discrimination Employment and Occupation Convention, 1958, No. 111, adopted by the International Labour Organization, addresses discrimination in employment and occupation where group-based preferences fall within its scope." ], "facets_not_applicable": { "recognition": "In-group favoritism is a behavioral pattern inferred from comparative evidence rather than a visually identifiable object or trait." } }, "sources": [ { "id": "wikidata", "title": "Wikidata item Q6008637: in-group favoritism", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q6008637", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "identity and sense of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api" }, { "id": "wikipedia-en", "title": "Wikipedia: In-group favoritism", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_favoritism", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "general description of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api sitelink" } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "meaning-and-membership", "name": "Meaning and membership", "description": "Establishes what counts as favoritism and whose perceived group boundary is being used.", "rationale": "An agent cannot identify in-group favoritism from demographic labels or unequal outcomes alone.", "layers": [ { "id": "definition-commitments", "name": "Definition commitments", "description": "Records the interpretation governing the assessment and its evidential requirements.", "findings": [ { "id": "criterion-for-an-instance", "name": "Criterion for an instance", "description": "Specify whether the assessment concerns relative preference, unequal behavior or an effect attributable to shared membership, and identify the source adopting that criterion.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does this definition require a favorable judgment, an enacted advantage or evidence that group membership caused the preference?", "kind": "definition", "id": "criterion-for-an-instance-q01" }, { "text": "Which researcher, framework or decision policy adopts this definition, and where is that commitment documented?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "criterion-for-an-instance-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "perceived-group-boundary", "name": "Perceived group boundary", "description": "Identifies membership as understood by the actor in the relevant situation.", "findings": [ { "id": "actor-relative-in-group", "name": "Actor-relative in-group", "description": "Record the actor, recipients and evidence of shared membership, including overlapping identities and changes in salience.", "questions": [ { "text": "What evidence shows that the actor regarded these recipients as members of an own-group at the time?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "actor-relative-in-group-q01" }, { "text": "Where recipients share one identity but differ on another, which boundary was relevant to the judgment or action?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "actor-relative-in-group-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "preferential-treatment", "name": "Preferential treatment", "description": "Describes the specific advantage and separates its effects on insiders and outsiders.", "rationale": "Favoritism must be tied to a concrete judgment or decision rather than inferred from a general description of group relations.", "layers": [ { "id": "expression-and-opportunity", "name": "Expression and opportunity", "description": "Connects preference to the available choices and their recipients.", "findings": [ { "id": "advantage-bearing-decision", "name": "Advantage-bearing decision", "description": "Identify what was evaluated, granted, withheld or excused, and which recipients were actually eligible for consideration.", "questions": [ { "text": "What specific rating, resource, opportunity, assistance or exemption favored in-group recipients?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "advantage-bearing-decision-q01" }, { "text": "Who was eligible and exposed to the decision, including people excluded before the final comparison?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "advantage-bearing-decision-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "benefit-and-disadvantage", "name": "Benefit and disadvantage", "description": "Distinguishes relative preference from the separate outcomes experienced by each group.", "findings": [ { "id": "separate-group-effects", "name": "Separate group effects", "description": "Assess insider gains and outsider losses against an explicit baseline, including whether the resource is fixed or expandable.", "questions": [ { "text": "Relative to the baseline, did insiders gain, outsiders lose or both?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "separate-group-effects-q01" }, { "text": "Does giving insiders more necessarily reduce outsiders' opportunities in this setting, or can support expand?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "separate-group-effects-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "measurement-and-comparison", "name": "Measurement and comparison", "description": "Makes the preference estimate interpretable and tests how closely the measure matches the intended concept.", "rationale": "Different tasks, denominators and comparison rules can produce apparently conflicting assessments of favoritism.", "layers": [ { "id": "operationalization", "name": "Operationalization", "description": "Records how the concept is translated into observable evidence.", "findings": [ { "id": "measure-to-claim-fit", "name": "Measure-to-claim fit", "description": "Specify the task or observation, outcome units and limits on interpreting ratings, stated intentions or consequential behavior.", "questions": [ { "text": "Is favoritism operationalized through ratings, allocation choices, trust decisions, selection rates or another observable measure?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "measure-to-claim-fit-q01" }, { "text": "What supports treating this measure as evidence of the claimed form of favoritism, and what does it leave unmeasured?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "measure-to-claim-fit-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "baseline-and-estimate", "name": "Baseline and estimate", "description": "Defines the comparison and quantifies its uncertainty.", "findings": [ { "id": "interpretable-preference-gap", "name": "Interpretable preference gap", "description": "Record the comparison group, eligibility denominators, baseline justification and uncertainty around any estimated advantage.", "questions": [ { "text": "Why is the chosen comparator appropriate given differences in eligibility, need, qualifications and opportunity?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "interpretable-preference-gap-q01" }, { "text": "How large and uncertain is the preference gap, and does its interpretation change under other defensible baselines?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "interpretable-preference-gap-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "attribution-and-explanation", "name": "Attribution and explanation", "description": "Assesses whether shared membership contributed to the preference and which explanations remain plausible.", "rationale": "Recognizing a disparity, identifying its cause and inferring a motive are separate judgments.", "layers": [ { "id": "membership-effect", "name": "Membership effect", "description": "Examines evidence that distinguishes membership from correlated recipient or relationship characteristics.", "findings": [ { "id": "alternative-explanations", "name": "Alternative explanations", "description": "Record how the evidence addresses familiarity, prior interaction, qualifications, need and other differences relevant to the decision.", "questions": [ { "text": "What evidence isolates shared membership from familiarity, prior reciprocity and decision-relevant recipient differences?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "alternative-explanations-q01" }, { "text": "Which alternative explanations remain unresolved, and how do they limit the attribution to in-group favoritism?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "alternative-explanations-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "candidate-mechanisms", "name": "Candidate mechanisms", "description": "Treats proposed motivations and processes as hypotheses requiring distinct evidence.", "findings": [ { "id": "mechanism-evidence", "name": "Mechanism evidence", "description": "Compare candidate explanations such as identity-related preference, expected reciprocity, perceived trustworthiness or loyalty norms without assigning motives from outcomes alone.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which proposed mechanism has direct supporting evidence beyond the observed preference?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "mechanism-evidence-q01" }, { "text": "What observation or comparison would distinguish the leading explanation from its strongest alternative?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "mechanism-evidence-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "judgment-and-response", "name": "Judgment and response", "description": "Connects the assessed pattern to applicable obligations, proportionate actions and follow-up evidence.", "rationale": "An agent needs to distinguish identifying favoritism from deciding whether and how to change a practice.", "layers": [ { "id": "contextual-permissibility", "name": "Contextual permissibility", "description": "Assesses preferential treatment against the actor's role and the purpose of the resource or decision.", "findings": [ { "id": "obligations-and-justification", "name": "Obligations and justification", "description": "Record applicable impartiality requirements, special obligations and contested justifications separately from the descriptive preference finding.", "questions": [ { "text": "What explicit role or allocation rule requires impartial treatment or permits priority for this group?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "obligations-and-justification-q01" }, { "text": "Does the justification explain the particular advantage and its extent, or merely assert loyalty to insiders?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "obligations-and-justification-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "response-and-reassessment", "name": "Response and reassessment", "description": "Selects interventions matched to the suspected process and evaluates their actual consequences.", "findings": [ { "id": "targeted-correction", "name": "Targeted correction", "description": "Specify an authorized response, such as structured criteria or independent review, and assess both membership effects and legitimate decision quality afterward.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which authorized change addresses the evidenced source of unjustified preference in this decision process?", "kind": "action", "id": "targeted-correction-q01" }, { "text": "What follow-up comparison would show reduced membership-based advantage while preserving relevant standards and obligations?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "targeted-correction-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "evidence-and-external-alignment", "name": "Evidence and external alignment", "description": "What the world already says about this thing, gathered so the model can be checked against it.", "rationale": "A model that cannot be lined up against existing standards, identifiers and practice cannot be adopted by anyone who already uses them.", "layers": [ { "id": "reported-evidence", "name": "Reported evidence", "description": "Findings from the breadth pass, kept separate from the structural claims.", "findings": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes", "name": "Check these first", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "Social identity and self-categorization approaches emphasize group-based self-definition; other accounts emphasize reciprocity expectations, interdependence, or learned associations. Their explanatory importance varies by setting.", "Group membership does not invariably produce favoritism, and members of some disadvantaged groups may show out-group preference.", "This is a recall-based description; no sources were consulted, and the measurement ranges are mathematical bounds rather than empirical norms." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of in-group favoritism this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-kinds", "name": "Kinds and varieties", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "Evaluative favoritism in judgments of group members", "Preferential allocation of resources to in-group members", "Preferential trust, cooperation, or helping toward in-group members", "Explicitly reported in-group preference", "Implicit in-group preference inferred from indirect measures" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of in-group favoritism this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-real-world-use", "name": "Real-world use", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "Minimal-group experiments examine whether arbitrary group assignments can produce preferential treatment.", "Organizational research examines favoritism in recruitment, promotion, and performance evaluation.", "Political psychology examines partisan differences in trust, judgment, and cooperation.", "Research on intergroup relations examines preferences associated with ethnic, national, religious, and other group memberships.", "Intervention studies examine whether intergroup contact or a shared group identity reduces preferential treatment." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of in-group favoritism this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-measurements", "name": "Typical measurements", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ { "quantity": "Mean in-group evaluation minus mean out-group evaluation", "typical_range": "Depends on the rating scale; zero indicates no mean difference.", "unit": "Rating-scale points" }, { "quantity": "Resources allocated to an in-group recipient minus resources allocated to a comparable out-group recipient", "typical_range": "Bounded by the allocation task's available resources.", "unit": "Money, tokens, or other allocated resources" }, { "quantity": "Difference in helping or cooperation rates between in-group and out-group recipients", "typical_range": "Possible range: -100 to 100; positive values indicate in-group favoritism.", "unit": "Percentage points" } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-measurements-q01", "text": "Which of these typical measurements hold for the sense of in-group favoritism this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards", "name": "Failure modes and hazards", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "Preferential treatment can produce unequal access to employment, resources, assistance, and institutional influence.", "A relative preference does not establish whether people favor the in-group, derogate the out-group, or do both; suitable comparison conditions are needed.", "Apparent favoritism can reflect familiarity, expected reciprocity, or relevant differences between recipients unless these are controlled.", "Results from arbitrary laboratory groups may not generalize directly to enduring groups with unequal status or histories of conflict.", "Indirect measures of group preference should not be treated as definitive diagnoses of an individual's discriminatory behavior." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of in-group favoritism this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-regional-variation", "name": "Regional variation", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "The group boundaries that organize favoritism vary across settings, including kinship, ethnicity, religion, nationality, locality, and political affiliation.", "Its expression depends on local norms, institutional arrangements, group status, and relations between groups; no universal regional ranking is assumed." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of in-group favoritism this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-neighbours", "name": "Neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ { "name": "Out-group derogation", "difference": "Derogation involves negative evaluation or treatment of outsiders; in-group favoritism can occur through benefits to insiders without hostility toward outsiders." }, { "name": "Ethnocentrism", "difference": "Ethnocentrism centers one's ethnic or cultural group as a reference or superior standard; in-group favoritism applies to many kinds of groups, including arbitrary experimental categories." }, { "name": "Homophily", "difference": "Homophily is the tendency for similar people to associate; favoritism concerns differential evaluation or treatment and need not involve forming relationships." }, { "name": "Nepotism", "difference": "Nepotism privileges relatives, especially in appointments or opportunities; in-group favoritism extends beyond family membership." }, { "name": "Social identity", "difference": "Social identity concerns self-definition through group membership; favoritism is a possible consequence rather than a necessary feature." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of in-group favoritism this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which reference works and research traditions define in-group favoritism descriptively, causally or motivationally, and where do their instance criteria conflict?", "How should the model distinguish membership-based preference from familiarity and reciprocity when those relationships arise through group membership itself?", "Which operationalizations support conclusions across consequential real-world decisions, and which remain specific to their research tasks?", "How should overlapping, disputed or changing group memberships be represented when different boundaries predict different preferences?", "Under which role-specific obligations is preferential support justified, and which interventions reduce unjustified favoritism without obstructing legitimate care or mutual support?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 17, "questions": 27 } }