Who Helps Natural‐Disaster Victims? Assessment of Trait and Situational Predictors
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 investigation examined whether trait variables (empathy, global social responsibility) and perceived human responsibility predict and interact to predict people's helping of natural‐disaster victims. In Study 1, participants completed a questionnaire and read one of two bogus earthquake reports which portrayed victims as either prepared or unprepared for a foreseeable earthquake. In Study 2, participants completed a questionnaire about the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Across studies, helping was best elicited from high‐empathy individuals who attributed responsibility for disasters to human actions (e.g., government), not natural phenomena (e.g., hurricane). Trait variables correlated with helping when assessed individually, but accounted for little unique variance in helping in multiple regression analyses. Judgment of human responsibility predicted helping when participants were familiar with the target disaster (Study 2) but did not predict helping when the disaster was unfamiliar (Study 1). Theoretical implications for researchers and practical implications for aid agencies are discussed .
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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