Subjective valuation and asymmetrical motivational systems: implications of scope insensitivity for decision making
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
Abstract Studies using the Iowa Gambling Task have revealed individual differences in performance on the task. In this study, we tested the hypothesis that approach and avoidance motivations influence decision making through the process of subjective valuation. We examined the implications of a high sensitivity to gains or losses from two perspectives which we labeled scalar multiplication and valuation by feeling . Using two versions of the Iowa Gambling Task, we find evidence supporting the view that asymmetry in the systems regulating approach and avoidance leads to systematic biases that translate to differences in performance. Specifically, we find that high sensitivity in the Behavioral Activation System (BAS) translates to valuation by feeling and insensitivity to scope in the domain of gains, while high sensitivity in the Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS) translates to valuation by feeling and insensitivity to scope in the domain of losses. The basis for these findings is discussed. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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