MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053505892 · doi:10.2753/joa0091-3367400203

Is Self-Character Similarity Always Beneficial?

2011· article· en· W2053505892 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

VenueJournal of Advertising · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedia Influence and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeCharacter (mathematics)PsychologyCognitionSimilarity (geometry)AdvertisingSocial psychologyCognitive resource theoryCognitive psychologyComputer scienceLiteratureArtBusinessMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines how consumers' immersion in narratives moderates the influence of self-character similarity on narrative and embedded brand evaluations. Traditional information-processing and narrative-processing models are used for understanding these effects. Study 1 showed that when immersion of participants in the narrative was induced, their brand and story evaluations were more favorable when the lead character was unlike themselves than when he or she was similar. Study 2 showed that when immersion in the narrative was induced, participants' unaided and aided brand memory was impeded more when the lead character was unlike themselves than when he or she was like them (indicating greater cognitive burden in the dissimilar condition). This provides a cognitive resource availability explanation for Study 1 results.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.180 · 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