MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009508194 · doi:10.1509/jmr.11.0272

Can Small Victories Help Win the War? Evidence from Consumer Debt Management

2012· article· en· W2009508194 on OpenAlex
David Gal, Blakeley B. McShane

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Marketing Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsKellogg's (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDebtLiberian dollarContext (archaeology)EconomicsConsumer debtBalance (ability)Monetary economicsPsychologyMacroeconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The question of how people should structure goal-directed activity to maximize the likelihood of goal attainment is one of theoretical and practical significance. In particular, should people begin by attempting relatively easy tasks or more difficult ones? How might these differing strategies affect the likelihood of completing the overarching goal? The authors examine this question in the context of an important goal for a large number of consumers—getting out of debt. Using a data set obtained from a debt settlement firm, they find that (1) closing debt accounts is predictive of debt elimination regardless of the dollar balance of the closed accounts, whereas (2) the dollar balance of closed accounts is not predictive of debt elimination when controlling for the fraction of accounts closed. These findings suggest that completing discrete subtasks might motivate consumers to persist in pursuit of a goal. The authors discuss implications for goal pursuit generally and for consumer debt management specifically.

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 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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.196
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.251
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.235 · 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