Systems Thinkers Express an Elevated Capacity for the Allocentric Components of Cognitive and Affective Empathy
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
Systems thinking is a cognitive style involving an implicit tendency to perceive the social‐ecological world as a multitude of interconnected complex adaptive systems. Previous research has shown that systems thinkers value and care for entities that transcend the self, such as other human beings and nature, signalling a more expansive self‐concept. Similarly, individuals high in empathy have an inclusive self‐concept, a stronger proenvironmental identity and value entities beyond themselves. The present study examined the hypothesis that systems thinking would share a positive relation with components of cognitive and affective empathy. Results from an online survey of 135 undergraduate students demonstrated that systems thinking shared significant positive correlations with perspective taking, empathic concern and fantasy. However, only perspective taking and empathic concern emerged as unique significant positive predictors of systems thinking. Results suggest that systems thinkers express an elevated capacity for the allocentric components of cognitive and affective empathy. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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