Generating Agreement in Computer-Mediated Groups
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
Agreement is an important social outcome often poorly handled by computer-mediated groups, presumably because the computer cannot transmit the necessary rich information. A recently proposed cognitive model suggests richness is not the key to social agreement and that group agreement can be generated by the exchange of anonymous, lean text information across a computer network. This experiment investigates this theory. Self-chosen groups of 5 completed three answer rounds on limited choice problems while exchanging a few characters of position information. These asynchronous, anonymous computer-mediated groups generated agreement without any rich information exchange. The key software design criteria for enacting agreement is proposed to be not richness but dynamic many-to-many linkage. The resulting “electronic voting” may be as different from traditional voting as e-mail is from traditional mail. It may also imply a new generation of groupware that recognizes social influence.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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