Promoting Multiple Policies to the Public: The Difficulties of Simultaneously Promoting War and Foreign Humanitarian Aid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To drum up support for the U.S. military's efforts abroad, government officials sometimes encourage U.S. residents to justify or excuse (morally disengage from) the resultant casualties. Although more disengaged U.S. residents are more supportive of war, two studies show that they are also less supportive of foreign humanitarian aid, particularly when American identity is salient and a more global identity, such as moral identity, is not. Study 1 reveals this effect when residents must choose between donating to a charity that benefits foreign civilians and donating to two other charities, one of which benefits U.S. soldiers. Study 2 shows that the effect holds when the opportunity to support foreign civilians appears in isolation, without reference to war or soldiers. Thus, U.S. residents who respond positively to war may exhibit less charitableness toward foreign civilians. For policy makers seeking to disburse foreign aid during war, these findings suggest that any effort to drum up support for war should be accompanied by a corresponding effort to maintain the U.S. public's goodwill toward foreign civilians.
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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".