Reactions to Waiting Online by Men and Women
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of the present study was to identify factors which may affect the difference between the actual time participants expected to wait for downloading a web page and the perceived waiting time, i.e., the online waiting-time gap. The findings from an experiment in which the music tempo (fast vs. slow) and waiting-duration information (presence vs. absence) were manipulated showed that sex moderated the relation between the manipulated variables and waiting-time gap; emotional response was more important between the manipulated variables and waiting-time gap than was cognitive response. The type of emotional response with an effect on waiting-time gap varied by sex: pleasure for women and arousal for men. For women, pleasure was affected by their cognitive response, while cognitive response played no significant role for men. For both sexes, information on waiting duration increased the perceived waiting time. This study leads to reconsidering the role of emotional response and sex in evaluating waiting time.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it