Beyond Social and Temporal Comparisons: The Role of Temporal Inter-Group Comparisons in the Context of Dramatic Social Change in Mongolia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we argue that the target of comparison should be taken into consideration when evaluating the associated outcomes of negative comparisons in the context of dramatic social change. To achieve this general goal, we considered five distinct targets of comparison: social (my group versus another group), temporal (my group across time), and temporal inter-group (my group versus another group across time). We hypothesised that in times of constant social change, two points of anchors (social and temporal) are simultaneously needed to evaluate one's position. A total of 236 high school and university students from Mongolia participated in the study. We used hierarchical regression analysis to test our hypotheses. As predicted, we found that temporal inter-group comparisons are better predictor of collective esteem than their social and temporal counterparts. Moreover, the link from past and future temporal inter-group comparisons to collective esteem was negative as hypothesized. Results are discussed in terms of theoretical implications.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".