Vested Interests in the Decision to Resolve Social Dilemma Conflicts
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
This exploratory study investigated the degree of correspondence between individual and group interests in the decision to adopt a sanctioning system to manage a shared resource with social dilemma properties. Fifty-two groups of four people accessed a “free-running” computer-simulated shared resource and had either equal or unequal resource access and experienced either an equitable or inequitable sanctioning system. Consistent with past research, a worse group outcome and greater voting for system change was found under the equitable than under the inequitable sanctioning system. However, at the individual level of analysis, the results suggested that the sanctioning systems did not have the same implications for all group members and that some of those differences predicted voting for system change. The study suggests the need to investigate the various decision frames and inequitable implications associated with structural/institutional change and calls for further investigation of dependencies between micro- and macro-level units of analysis.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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