Resource context contestability and emergent social structure: an empirical investigation of an evolutionary theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Using evolutionary theory as its underlying perspective this research explores the relationship between evolved social behaviors; specifically emergent social structures, and the ecology of the social group; specifically the contestability of the resource context. Contexts where resources are clustered, predictable, and visible, and where consumption is delayed are highly contestable. When resources are dispersed, unpredictable, and concealed and consumption is immediate the context is less contestable. In our ancestral environment this variation in resource context posed differing adaptive problems for the formation and maintenance of social groups. Different social structures evolved to solve these different problems. The relationship between contestability of the resource context and emergent social structure was tested in an experiment employing 114 subjects over 21 trials. Individuals operating in a low contestable resource context perceived a more egalitarian, hedonic‐like social structure; those functioning in a high contestable context reported experiencing a more hierarchical, agonic‐like social structure. These findings support the theory that our response to social situations is determined by an endogenous component, our evolved human nature, in combination with an exogenous component, the character of the ecology within which the group forms and functions. While the endogenous component is a product of the evolutionary process and largely beyond the influence of management, the ecological component, the perception of the resource context can be affected by managerial action. Implications for researchers and managers, and areas for continued investigation are explored. 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".