MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1700158444

Measuring the Locus of Causality as a Means of Generating Explanations for the Legitimization of Paltry Favors Effect

2014· article· en· W1700158444 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jessica Russell, Franklin J. Boster

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPsychology of Social Influence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttributionImpression managementLocus of controlCausality (physics)Compliance (psychology)PsychologyImpression formationImpressionSocial psychologyLocus (genetics)Tone (literature)PerceptionAdvertisingLinguisticsBusinessPhilosophySocial perception
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two experiments were designed to examine the potential for impression management as an explanation of the legitimization of paltry favors (LPF) effect. Scenarios varied the technique (control v. LPF, Experiment 1), and both whether or not the target complied and the amount donated by the target (Experiment 2). The potential for impression management as a mediator of the effect was explored by examining attributions made concerning the locus of causality for compliance and non-compliance. Findings provide the foundation for future research by generating evidence consistent with the desire to make a favorable impression as an explanation for the LPF effect.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.666
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social scienceSame topicPsychology of Social InfluenceFrench-language works237,207