MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2581159468 · doi:10.1093/jcr/ucw084

Power Distance Belief, Power, and Charitable Giving

2017· article· en· W2581159468 on OpenAlex
DaHee Han, Ashok K. Lalwani, Adam Duhachek

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Consumer Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPower (physics)Protein Data Bank (RCSB PDB)Social psychologyPsychologyBoundary (topology)Relation (database)InequalityComputer scienceMathematicsBiologyData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three studies examine the relation between power distance belief (PDB), the tendency to accept and expect inequalities in society; power, the control one has over valued resources; and charitable giving. Results suggest that the effect of PDB depends on the power held by the donor. In low-PDB contexts, people high (vs. low) in psychological power tend to be more self-focused (vs. other-focused), and this leads them to be less charitable. In high-PDB contexts, however, people high (vs. low) in psychological power tend to be more other-focused (vs. self-focused), and this leads them to be more charitable. The authors also explore several boundary conditions for these relationships and conclude with the implications of these findings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.705
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.108
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.377 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it