MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089539158 · doi:10.1002/mde.1292

Applying evolutionary psychology in understanding the Darwinian roots of consumption phenomena

2006· article· en· W2089539158 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

VenueManagerial and Decision Economics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEvolutionary psychologyConsumption (sociology)DarwinismConsumer behaviourCausationProximate and ultimate causationPreferenceEpistemologyConsumer researchCognitionSociologyPositive economicsPsychologyCognitive scienceSocial scienceSocial psychologyEconomicsMarketingPhilosophyMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Consumer scholars have amassed an impressive body of knowledge using a wide range of methodological approaches and paradigms. Despite the scientific rigor of the consumer behavior discipline, most scholars that have reviewed the field agree that it has yielded a fragmented and confused literature. It is argued here that this is in part due to the near paucity of evolutionary‐based theorizing within the theoretical frameworks used by consumer scholars. While evolutionary psychology focuses on ultimate causation namely the adaptive origins of a particular cognition, emotion, preference, or behavior, the consumer behavior discipline has overwhelmingly addressed proximate mechanisms. Both levels of analyses are needed for a full understanding of consumption phenomena. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.592
Threshold uncertainty score0.843

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.261 · 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