The collective amnesia of marketing scholars regarding consumers' biological and evolutionary roots
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
Despite the extraordinary advances in biology in the 20th century, along with the infusion of Darwinian theory across countless domains of human import, marketing and consumer scholars have doggedly forgotten, rejected, or ignored that consumers are biological beings shaped by a common set of evolutionary forces. Accordingly, this collective amnesia has yielded disciplines that largely focus on the disjointed and incoherent cataloguing of empirical findings, all of which operate at the proximate level. A complete and accurate understanding of any biological organism requires that it be studied at both the proximate and ultimate (in the Darwinian adaptive sense of the term) levels. Hence, at best, marketing and consumer scholars generate incomplete accounts of Homo consumericus and at worst they provide erroneous theories that eventually fall by the epistemological wayside. Should the collective amnesia persist, marketing and consumer scholars will further contribute to the sinking of our discipline into the abyss of irrelevant sciences, disconnected from the revolutionary work that is being conducted within the natural sciences.
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 | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it