Attraction personnelle et attraction sociale : Lorsque la saillance catégorielle annule la relation similitude-attraction.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La litterature sur l'attraction interpersonnelle a largement demontre que la ressemblance entre les personnes conduisait a l'attraction. L'objectif de cet article est de montrer que le niveau de categorisation de soi module cette relation similitude-attraction. Des eleves etaient amenes a constituer des groupes de travail en selectionnant cinq partenaires dont la proportion de similitude variait. Dans les conditions classiques de non saillance categorielle, la relation similitude-attraction a ete observee. En revanche, lorsque la categorisation de genre a ete rendue saillante de maniere implicite, les eleves n'ont pas manifeste davantage d'attraction pour les partenaires semblables. Les resultats sont discutes dans la perspective de la theorie de l'auto-categorisation et suggerent l'existence de deux formes d'attraction : attraction personnelle et attraction sociale.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".