SlowGuess/NAACL_2022_OCR huggingface dataset:
Short Papers), pages 622-628, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Moin Nadeem, Anna Bethke, and Siva Reddy. 2020. Stereoset: Measuring stereotypical bias in pretrained language models. CoRR, abs/2004.09456.
Nikita Nangia, Clara Vania, Rasika Bhalerao, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2020. CrowS-pairs: A challenge dataset for measuring social biases in masked language models. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1953-1967, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Debora Nozza, Federico Bianchi, and Dirk Hovy. 2021. HONEST: Measuring hurtful sentence completion in language models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2398-2406, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Silviu Paun, Bob Carpenter, Jon Chamberlain, Dirk Hovy, Udo Kruschwitz, and Massimo Poesio. 2018. Comparing Bayesian Models of Annotation. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 6:571-585.
Maarten Sap, Saadia Gabriel, Lianhui Qin, Dan Jurafsky, Noah A. Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2019. Social bias frames: Reasoning about social and power implications of language. CoRR, abs/1911.03891.
Anna Sotnikova, Yang Trista Cao, Hal Daumé III, and Rachel Rudinger. 2021. Analyzing stereotypes in generative text inference tasks. In *Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACLIJCNLP* 2021, pages 4052-4065, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Dr. Charles Stangor. 2014. Principles of social psychology - 1st international edition. BCcampus.
Amy C Steinbugler, Julie E Press, and Janice Johnson Dias. 2006. Gender, race, and affirmative action: Operationalizing intersectionality in survey research. Gender & Society, 20(6):805-825.
Sheldon Stryker. 1980. *Symbolic interactionism: a social structural version*. Benjamin/Cummings Pub. Co.
S. Wheeler and Richard Petty. 2001. The effects of stereotype activation on behavior: A review of possible mechanisms. *Psychological bulletin*, 127:797-826.
I.J. Wod. 1985. Weight of evidence: A brief survey. Bayesian statistics, 2:249-270.
Vincent Y. Yzerbyt. 2018. The dimensional compensation model. Agency and Communion in Social Psychology.
Maxine Baca Zinn and Bonnie Thornton Dill. 1996. Theorizing difference from multiracial feminism. *Feminist studies*, 22(2):321-331.
A Traits
The full list of traits and respective adjectives is in the Table A7
Trait	Adjectives
Agency scale
Powerful	forceful, formidable, capable
Powerless	weak, helpless, incapable
High status	privileged, elite, advantaged
Low status	unskilled, lowly, inferior
Dominant	commanding, authoritative
Dominated	subservient, submissive, deferential
Wealthy	affluent, rich, prosperous
Poor	impoverished, destitute, needy
Confident	self-assured, assured, self-possessed
Unconfident	bashful, meek, timid
Competitive	ambitious, driven, zealous
Unassertive	submissive, diffident, passive
Beliefs scale
Modern	radical, forward-looking
Traditional	old-fashioned
Science-oriented	analytical, logical, atheistic
Religious	devout, pious, reverent
Alternative	unorthodox, avant-garde, eccentric
Conventional	mainstream
Liberal	left-wing, Democrat, progressive
Conservative	right-wing, Republican
Communion scale
Trustworthy	reliable, dependable, truthful
Untrustworthy	unreliable, undependable
Sincere	genuine, forthright, honest
Dishonest	insincere, deceitful
Warm	friendly, kind, loving
Cold	unfriendly, unkind, aloof
Benevolent	considerate, generous
Threatening	intimidating, menacing, frightening
Likable	pleasant, amiable, lovable
Repellent	vile, loathsome, nasty
Altruistic	helpful, charitable, selfless
Egotistic	selfish, self-centered, insensitive
Table A7: Full list of traits and corresponding adjectives.
Dominates	Dominated by
age	gender/sexuality, race/ethnicity, nationality, poli- tics, religion, socio-economic	-
politics	nationality, socio-economic, disability	age, religion
gender/ sexuality	race/ethnicity, nationality	age
disability	race/ethnicity, nationality	politics
social-economic	race/ethnicity, nationality	age, politics
religion	politics	-
race/ ethnicity	-	age, gender/sexuality, socio-economic, disability
nationality	-	age, gender/sexuality, politics, socio-economic, disability
B Experiment Results with Single Groups
Table A11 presents the Kendall's  $\tau$  correlation scores between model and human at group level, while Table A12 and Table A13 shows the alignment with the precision at 3 scores (former computed with the top 3 traits and latter with the bottom 3 traits).
C Experiment Results of Intersectional Groups
Table A8 presents the dominating relationship between domains, while Table A9 lists the average correlation scores of the paired group with each of its identities' domain for each domain pairs.
Table A10 shows the top 50 emergent group-trait associations.
Table A8: Domination relations between social domains.
Domain A	Domain B	Correlation A	Correlation B
age	disability	0.532	0.475
gender	disability	0.418	0.356
age	gender	0.552	0.320
age	nationality	0.583	0.337
disability	nationality	0.543	0.309
gender	nationality	0.481	0.225
political stance	nationality	0.287	0.179
race	nationality	0.594	0.525
religion	nationality	0.490	0.525
socio	nationality	0.540	0.338
age	political stance	0.319	0.177
disability	political stance	0.019	0.397
gender	political stance	0.315	0.375
race	political stance	0.376	0.348
religion	political stance	0.380	0.271
age	race	0.520	0.395
disability	race	0.538	0.392
gender	race	0.478	0.371
age	religion	0.502	0.449
disability	religion	0.465	0.463
gender	religion	0.439	0.360
race	religion	0.522	0.460
age	socio	0.562	0.406
disability	socio	0.420	0.419
gender	socio	0.374	0.397
political stance	socio	0.433	0.290
race	socio	0.387	0.488
religion	socio	0.404	0.439
Table A9: Full list of correlations for paired social groups. The table shows two domains, which comprise group AB, correlations between group AB and group A, group AB and group B.
D Human study setup
The survey for the collection of associated traits is presented in Figure A2.
Some kind of people in our society are viewed as [powerful, confident], while other kind of people in our society are viewed as [the opposite stereotype; powerless, unconfident].
In the following pages, you will be provided with 5 social groups.
For each listed social group, please rate how people in America stereotype the group. We will provide a list of trait pairs (e.g., powerless to powerful) and you are to rate where in that range you believe the group is stereotyped.
Importantly, we are not interested in your personal beliefs, but rather how you think people in America view these groups.
Note that there will be test questions in the survey.
As viewed by American society, (while my own opinions may differ), how [e.g., powerless, dominant, poor] versus [e.g., powerful, dominated, wealthy] are Christian people?
Figure A2: Example of the survey for one group.
E Annotators demographics
$55.4\%$  are white, with  $50.6\%$  male annotators, 40.4 female annotators and no annotators who provided another gender.  $15.1\%$  of annotators are Black, and  $25.6\%$  are Hispanic with slightly more female annotators  $56.4\%$ . We provide four tables A14, A15, A16, A17 showing how perceptions of White people, Black people, White men, and White women are different from each other across annotator demographics. We see variations between in-group and out-group annotations. For instance, women see themselves as more powerful than men see women. While overall scores for men and women groups are similar across white and Black annotators. In Table A18, we show correlation scores for all social groups and overall score between the model and Black, white, white female, and white male annotators.
Group AB	Emerged Trait	Increased Score	Max Score
Jamaican mechanic	trustworthy	0.1055	-0.0449
gay with a disability	conventional	0.0931	0.0017
gay with a disability	threatening	0.0922	-0.0316
Hispanic unemployed person	egotistic	0.0919	-0.1546
gay with a disability	liberal	0.0882	0.0401
female Native American	dominant	0.0860	0.0682
Democrat teenager	altruistic	0.0858	-0.0986
Deaf mechanic	likable	0.0854	0.0046
Black mechanic	likable	0.0821	-0.0118
Democrat mechanic	trustworthy	0.0819	-0.0449
male doctor	benevolent	0.0819	-0.0230
female Indian person	dominant	0.0808	0.0471
Latina	dominant	0.0808	0.0720
Filipino mechanic	trustworthy	0.0802	-0.0137
Native American mechanic	trustworthy	0.0796	-0.0449
teenage Democrat	altruistic	0.0794	-0.0986
trans mechanic	likable	0.0792	-0.0118
Democrat mechanic	sincere	0.0792	-0.0205
Democrat teenager	sincere	0.0790	-0.0205
female Black person	dominant	0.0785	0.0471
unemployed Italian person	poor	0.0784	0.0384
female doctor	alternative	0.0779	0.0052
Irish autistic person	egotistic	0.0775	-0.0708
Russian mechanic	likable	0.0773	-0.0118
unemployed Hispanic person	egotistic	0.0772	-0.1546
Russian unemployed person	egotistic	0.0762	-0.1788
female doctor	traditional	0.0750	0.0107
Amish mechanic	trustworthy	0.0748	-0.0170
Republican mechanic	sincere	0.0745	-0.0164
male teenager	conventional	0.0738	-0.0589
Hispanic French person	egotistic	0.0733	-0.1210
Cuban person with a disability	poor	0.0731	0.0486
atheist mechanic	trustworthy	0.0727	-0.0381
Hispanic Irish person	egotistic	0.0725	-0.1322
female Indian person	dominated	0.0721	0.0421
gay with a disability	traditional	0.0717	0.0229
unemployed German person	poor	0.0715	0.0384
female American person	dominated	0.0709	0.0328
Irish mechanic	trustworthy	0.0709	-0.0300
Muslim autistic person	egotistic	0.0708	-0.0708
male teenager	traditional	0.0705	-0.0490
Russian autistic person	egotistic	0.0704	-0.0708
Japanese autistic person	egotistic	0.0700	-0.0708
trans Republican	sincere	0.0698	-0.0164
German White person	egotistic	0.0696	-0.0833
male Buddhist	benevolent	0.0696	-0.0148
Irish Deaf person	egotistic	0.0693	-0.0589
Native American mechanic	sincere	0.0690	-0.0249
German Republican	egotistic	0.0688	-0.0517
Table A10: Top 50 emergent group-trait associations.
CEAT	ILPS	\( \mathbf{I L P S}^{\star} \)	SeT
RoBERTa	BERT	RoBERTa	BERT	RoBERTa	BERT	RoBERTa	BERT
White people	0.150	-0.033	-0.117	-0.383	0.117	-0.350	-0.033	-0.217
Hispanic people	0.533	0.200	0.133	0.300	0.483	0.283
Asian people	0.092	0.126	0.159	0.126	0.243	0.326
Black people	-0.209	-0.075	0.209	0.142	0.176	0.042	0.393	0.209
Immigrants	-0.117	-0.267	0.233	0.350	0.217	0.383	0.283	0.400
Men	0.183	-0.033	0.083	0.433	0.233	0.183	0.200	0.383
Women	-0.433	0.083	0.217	0.017	-0.100	0.050	0.083	0.067
Wealthy people	0.100	-0.133	0.067	0.017	0.150	0.167	0.067	0.083
Jewish people	0.250	0.083	0.017	-0.067	0.150	-0.217	0.033	-0.100
Muslim people	0.233	-0.050	0.000	-0.167	0.183	-0.017	0.250	-0.233
Christians	0.343	0.393	0.209	0.075	0.410	-0.176	0.243	0.142
Cis people	0.167	-0.067	-0.167	-0.033	0.217	-0.400	0.050	0.033
Trans people	-0.283	-0.050	0.067	-0.067	0.033	0.083	0.133	0.050
Working class people	0.050	0.300	0.183	-0.117	-0.300	0.017	0.250	-0.033
Nonbinary people	0.050	-0.183	0.117	-0.050	0.067	-0.250
Native Americans	-0.217	-0.017	0.117	0.350	0.000	-0.183	0.200	0.283
Buddhists	0.000	0.300	0.417	0.517	0.483	0.217	0.383	0.533
Mormons	0.167	0.367	-0.033	0.100	0.283	-0.333	-0.083	0.283
Veterans	0.100	0.417	0.250	-0.083	0.267	-0.083	0.217	-0.033
Unemployed people	-0.233	0.083	0.067	0.500	0.067	0.400	0.050	0.500
Teenagers	-0.150	-0.133	0.200	-0.267	0.367	-0.033	0.217	-0.250
Elderly people	0.017	0.417	0.650	0.333	0.533	0.117	0.700	0.400
Blind people	0.017	0.367	0.217	0.267	0.100	0.150	0.200	0.267
Autistic people	0.350	-0.117	0.317	0.250	0.267	-0.050
Neurodivergent people	-0.167	0.000	0.083	-0.017	-0.100	0.050	0.017	-0.117
Table A11: Overall alignment scores with human annotations for Kendall's  $\tau$ . There are some missing scores for CEAT because there are no occurrences of these groups in the Reddit 2014 dataset.
CEAT	ILPS	ILPS*	SeT
RoBERTa	BERT	RoBERTa	BERT	RoBERTa	BERT	RoBERTa	BERT
White people	1.00	1.00	0.33	0.33	0.67	0.67	0.67	0.67
Hispanic people	1.00	0.67	0.67	0.67	0.67	0.67
Asian people	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
Black people	0.00	0.33	0.33	0.33	0.33	0.00	0.67	0.33
Immigrants	0.33	0.00	0.67	0.00	0.33	0.00	0.33	0.33
Men	0.67	0.00	0.67	1.00	0.67	0.33	0.67	1.00
Women	0.33	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
Wealthy people	1.00	0.67	0.33	0.33	0.67	0.67	0.67	0.67
Jewish people	0.67	0.67	0.00	0.33	0.33	0.33	0.33	0.33
Muslim people	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.33	0.33	0.33	0.00
Christians	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.67	1.00	1.00
Cis people	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.67	1.00	0.67	1.00	1.00
Trans people	0.33	0.33	1.00	0.00	0.67	0.67	1.00	0.33
Working class people	0.67	0.67	0.67	0.33	0.33	1.00	0.67	0.67
Non-binary people	1.00	0.67	1.00	0.67	1.00	0.67
Native Americans	0.33	0.67	0.67	1.00	0.33	0.67	0.67	0.67
Buddhists	0.33	0.67	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.677	1.00
Mormons	0.67	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.67	1.00	1.00
Veterans	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
Unemployed people	0.33	0.00	0.00	0.67	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.67
Teenagers	0.00	0.33	0.67	0.33	0.67	0.33	0.67	0.67
Elderly people	0.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
Blind people	0.67	0.67	1.00	1.00	0.67	1.00	1.00	1.00
Autistic people	1.00	0.67	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.67
Neurodivergent people	0.33	0.00	0.00	0.33	0.00	0.33	0.00	0.33
Table A12: Overall alignment scores with human annotations for Precision at the top 3 traits.
CEAT	ILPS	\( \mathbf{I L P S}^{\star} \)	SeT
RoBERTa	BERT	RoBERTa	BERT	RoBERTa	BERT	RoBERTa	BERT
White people	0.67	0.33	0.00	0.00	0.33	0.67	0.67	0.67
Hispanic people	1.00	0.33	1.00	0.67	0.67	0.67
Asian people	0.33	0.00	0.67	1.00	1.00	1.00
Black people	0.33	0.33	1.00	0.67	1.00	0.00	0.67	0.33
Immigrants	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
Men	0.33	0.67	0.33	1.00	0.67	1.00	0.67	1.00
Women	0.00	0.33	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.33	0.00	0.00
Wealthy people	0.33	0.00	0.33	0.00	0.33	0.67	0.33	0.00
Jewish people	0.67	0.33	1.00	0.67	1.00	0.00	1.00	0.67
Muslim people	0.67	0.67	0.67	0.33	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.67
Christians	0.67	1.00	0.33	0.33	0.33	0.00	0.33	0.67
Cis people	0.33	0.33	0.00	0.33	0.33	0.00	0.33	0.33
Trans people	0.00	0.67	0.33	0.33	0.33	0.33	0.33	0.33
Working class people	0.67	0.67	0.33	0.33	0.67	0.33	0.33	0.67
Non-binary people	0.00	0.00	0.33	0.67	0.00	0.00
Native Americans	0.33	0.33	0.33	0.67	0.67	0.33	0.67	0.67
Buddhists	0.33	0.67	1.00	1.00	0.33	0.67	1.00	0.67
Mormons	0.67	1.00	0.33	0.33	0.33	0.00	0.33	0.67
Veterans	0.33	0.67	0.67	0.00	0.33	0.33	0.67	0.00
Unemployed people	0.67	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
Teenagers	0.33	0.33	1.00	0.33	1.00	1.00	0.67	0.00
Elderly people	0.33	1.00	1.00	0.67	1.00	0.33	1.00	1.00
Blind people	1.00	0.67	0.33	0.33	0.67	0.33	0.33	0.33
Autistic people	0.67	0.33	1.00	0.67	0.33	0.33
Neurodivergent people	0.67	0.67	0.67	1.00	0.67	0.67	0.67	0.67
Table A13: Overall alignment scores with human annotations for Precision at the bottom 3 traits.
Trait pair	Social Group
Women	Men	White	Black
powerless-powerful	46.8	81.4	80.7	37.1
low status-high status	44.9	76.3	78.6	25.5
dominated-dominant	34.3	84.8	72.6	26.3
poor-wealthy	55.2	67.7	76.6	28.8
unconfident-confident	57.3	78.3	77.4	54.7
unassertive-competitive	53.8	75.5	79.3	49.9
traditional-modern	61.8	53.3	60.8	31.7
religious-science oriented	59.9	56.1	52.8	27.0
conventional-alternative	55.3	46.7	47.1	44.2
conservative-liberal	61.7	40.8	43.0	56.8
untrustworthy-trustworthy	52.2	50.9	58.2	29.9
dishonest-sincere	52.4	45.3	56.6	37.4
cold-warm	53.8	42.3	56.8	53.0
threatening-benevolent	64.3	39.7	54.2	31.4
repellent-likable	65.5	59.7	59.1	40.3
egoistic-altruistic	50.1	42.8	50.6	47.5
Table A14: Group-trait associations from white annotators for a subset of social groups. Scores which are closer to 0 indicate closer to the trait on the left (powerless, low status, etc.) and scores closer to 100 indicate closer to the trait on the right (powerful, high status, etc.).
Trait pair	Social Group
Women	Men	White	Black
powerless-powerful	61.0	93.0	73.8	56.6
low status-high status	67.8	86.0	74.3	49.3
dominated-dominant	56.0	94.0	72.5	55.3
poor-wealthy	59.0	91.0	76.8	40.6
unconfident-confident	82.3	85.0	69.7	75.9
unassertive-competitive	54.0	57.0	80.5	76.3
traditional-modern	64.8	67.0	80.3	53.7
religious-science oriented	35.5	65.0	81.8	21.7
conventional-alternative	66.0	62.0	52.5	57.9
conservative-liberal	71.3	82.0	71.5	67.7
untrustworthy-trustworthy	78.5	57.0	62.8	46.9
dishonest-sincere	78.5	61.0	62.3	42.7
cold-warm	87.5	66.0	50.7	58.3
threatening-benevolent	78.3	38.0	35.5	49.7
repellent-likable	85.0	59.0	49.3	62.1
egoistic-altruistic	80.8	77.0	59.8	39.6
Table A15: Group-trait associations from Black annotators for a subset of social groups. Scores which are closer to 0 indicate closer to the trait on the left (powerless, low status, etc.) and scores closer to 100 indicate closer to the trait on the right (powerful, high status, etc.).
Trait pair	Social Group
Women	Men	White	Black
powerless-powerful	37.5	80.0	81.9	29.8
low status-high status	44.0	77.0	83.4	18.3
dominated-dominant	42.0	83.3	69.8	18.0
poor-wealthy	47.0	70.5	83.0	12.5
unconfident-confident	55.5	75.5	81.6	51.0
unassertive-competitive	61.0	83.3	82.3	39.0
traditional-modern	59.5	59.3	76.8	26.3
religious-science oriented	46.0	62.5	61.3	21.5
conventional-alternative	51.0	55.0	64.6	42.3
conservative-liberal	54.0	36.7	55.1	53.0
untrustworthy-trustworthy	49.5	45.7	47.5	32.5
dishonest-sincere	48.0	42.5	52.5	34.0
cold-warm	50.0	43.0	55.6	48.0
threatening-benevolent	56.5	34.0	48.3	24.0
repellent-likable	50.5	57.3	57.0	40.5
egoistic-altruistic	51.5	44.8	47.6	53.8
Table A16: Group-trait associations from white male annotators for a subset of social groups. Scores which are closer to 0 indicate closer to the trait on the left (powerless, low status, etc.) and scores closer to 100 indicate closer to the trait on the right (powerful, high status, etc.).
Trait pair	Social Group
Women	Men	White	Black
powerless-powerful	48.1	82.8	81.8	41.3
low status-high status	45.1	75.5	76.8	29.6
dominated-dominant	33.2	86.2	78.1	31.0
poor-wealthy	56.4	64.8	73.5	38.1
unconfident-confident	57.5	81.7	76.2	56.9
unassertive-competitive	52.8	67.7	78.9	56.9
traditional-modern	62.1	47.2	51.0	34.9
religious-science oriented	58.5	49.7	50.6	30.2
conventional-alternative	55.9	38.3	37.4	45.3
conservative-liberal	62.8	45.0	38.6	59.0
untrustworthy-trustworthy	52.6	56.2	61.0	28.4
dishonest-sincere	53.1	48.2	53.9	39.1
cold-warm	54.3	41.7	51.4	55.9
threatening-benevolent	65.4	45.3	53.4	35.6
repellent-likable	67.7	62.0	53.3	40.1
egoistic-altruistic	49.9	40.7	47.7	44.0
Table A17: Group-trait associations from white female annotators for a subset of social groups. Scores which are closer to 0 indicate closer to the trait on the left (powerless, low status, etc.) and scores closer to 100 indicate closer to the trait on the right (powerful, high status, etc.).
Trait pair	Social Group
Black	White	White Men	White Women
White person	-0.130	0.080	-0.180	0.220
Hispanic person	0.360	0.470	0.200	0.570
Asian person	0.560	0.100	0.190	0.050
Black person	0.470	0.370	0.250	0.370
immigrant	0.010	0.420	0.300	0.420
man	-0.130	0.220	0.180	0.320
woman	-0.060	-0.030	0.080	-0.080
wealthy person	-0.600	0.050	0.050	0.080
Jewish person	0.020	-0.020	-0.120	0.070
Muslim person	—	0.230	0.140	0.280
Christian	0.270	0.390	0.280	0.010
cis person	-0.840	0.090	-0.020	0.170
trans person	0.190	0.150	0.180	0.120
working class person	0.010	0.290	0.290	0.220
non-binary	-0.040	0.050	-0.030	0.120
Native American	0.140	0.070	0.080	0.130
Buddhist	0.230	0.320	0.250	0.320
Mormon	-0.030	0.030	0.100	-0.180
veteran	0.220	0.200	0.180	0.190
unemployed person	0.030	0.020	-0.040	0.000
teenager	0.200	0.200	0.220	0.130
elderly person	0.540	0.650	0.710	0.620
blind person	0.226	0.217	0.217	0.217
autistic person	0.267	0.217	0.267	0.167
neurodivergent person	0.092	0.050	0.092	0.033
overall	0.151	0.187	0.177	0.164
Table A18: Correlation scores between the model and white, Black, white male, and white female annotators. Scores with p-values less than 0.05 are marked bold.
CEAT	ILPS	\( \mathbf{I L P S}^{\star} \)	SeT
RoBERTa	BERT	RoBERTa	BERT	RoBERTa	BERT	RoBERTa	BERT
Kendall's τ	0.028	0.123†	0.142†	0.071	0.173†	-0.007	0.174†	0.093
Table A19: Overall alignment scores with human annotations with only test groups. The highest scores are bold for each row. For correlation scores, we mark scores where the p-value is  $< 0.05$  with †.