Moving away from a bad past and toward a good future: Feelings influence the metaphorical understanding of time.
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
People move close to things they like and away from things they dislike. Can the same be applied to temporal events? Through alternating between the ego-moving and time-moving metaphorical perspectives of time, people can manage the psychological distance between themselves and various temporal events by staying away from unpleasant experiences and bringing pleasant ones within reach. Consistent with theoretical predictions, 4 studies showed that recalling an unpleasant event from the past prompted the ego-moving perspective, whereas recalling a pleasant past event prompted the time-moving perspective. In contrast, anticipating a pleasant future invoked the ego-moving perspective, whereas anticipating an unpleasant future invoked the time-moving perspective. The valence of feelings explained the systematic shifts in how time is metaphorically understood. These findings highlight the role of basic psychological processes in temporal reasoning. Clinical implications for rumination and mood disorders 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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