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
The authors focus on three critical areas of future research on regulatory fit. First, they focus on how regulatory orientation is sustained. The authors argue that there are two distinct approaches that bring about the “just-right feeling”: (1) a process-based approach that involves the interaction between regulatory orientation and decision-making processes and (2) an outcome-based approach that involves the interaction between regulatory orientation and the framed outcomes offered. Second, the authors discuss possible boundary conditions of regulatory fit effects, highlighting the apparent paradoxical role of involvement. They suggest that the antecedents that give rise to regulatory fit (e.g., lowered motivation) can differ from its consequences (e.g., increased motivation). Third, the authors discuss broader implications of regulatory fit, proposing three possible mechanisms by which regulatory fit can lead to improved physical health and discussing the degree to which the just-right feeling plays a role in goal-sustaining experiences related to subjective well-being (e.g., flow).
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 | 0.020 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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