Calendars Matter: Temporal Categories Affect Cognition about Future Time Periods
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
Every day, we encounter representations of time in the form of calendars, day planners, and watches. What effect might different structures of time representations have on how we think about the time that is being represented? In four studies, we investigate whether segregation (many temporal categories) or aggregation (few temporal categories) of a time period affects appraisals of the time period itself. Results showed that when a more segregated timeline (Study 1b) or calendar (Study 2) was presented, or if participants chose a more segregated timeline (Study 1a) or calendar (Study 3), the perceived impact of anticipated events during the time period was amplified. Anticipating positive events in a year represented in many temporal categories (e.g., a calendar emphasizing days) led participants to see this year as overall more positive than if the year was represented in few temporal categories (e.g., a calendar emphasizing months).
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.010 |
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