MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053465724 · doi:10.1177/01461672002611004

Investment in Long-Term Goals and Commitment to Just Means Drive the Need to Believe in a Just World

2000· article· en· W2053465724 on OpenAlex

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

VenuePersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJust-world hypothesisTerm (time)PsychologyInvestment (military)Juvenile delinquencyFocus (optics)Social psychologyWork (physics)Political scienceCriminologyLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The author hypothesized that the less one focuses on long-term goals, or the less one plans to achieve goals through just means, the less essential is the belief in a just world (BJW) and the less one will work at maintaining this belief when it is threatened. In Studies 1 and 2, participants’ focus on long-term investments was either manipulated or measured, and their reactions to a victim who presented a high or low threat to the BJW were assessed. In Study 2, the tendency to obtain goals through unjust means (delinquency) also was measured. As predicted, strong long-term focus and low-delinquency participants reacted more negatively toward the high-threat victim, presumably to maintain the BJW. Study 3 showed that the more one focuses on long-term investments and the less one uses unjust means, the stronger one’s BJW.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.580
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.321 · 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