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 study examined the genetic and environmental contribution to people's preference for spouses and friends to be similar to themselves. In their responses to 130 personality, attitude, and demographic questions, 174 pairs of monozygotic (MZ) twins resembled each other (r= .53) more than did 148 pairs of dizygotic (DZ) twins (r= .32), 322 pairs of spouses (r= .32), and 563 pairs of best friends (r= .20). It was not previously recognized that spouses and friends are as similar as DZ twins. MZ twins also chose spouses and best friends more similar to their co-twins' friends and spouses than did DZ twins (mean rs = .22 vs. .14). The twins' preference for spouses and friends similar to themselves was about 34% due to the twins' genes, 12% due to the twins' common environment, and 54% due to the twins' unique (nonshared) environment. Similarity to partners was more pronounced on the more heritable items than the less heritable items. It is concluded that people are genetically inclined to choose as social partners those who resemble themselves at a genetic level.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 it