Uncertainty and Influence: The Advantages (and Disadvantages) of Being Atypical
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
Abstract Research suggests that individuals who best embody the attributes that define their group's identity tend to have the most influence within their groups and often occupy leadership roles. This idea lies at the heart of social identity approaches to leadership, which have robustly found that groups tend to more strongly support prototypical leaders and, as a result, prototypical leaders can be more effective than less prototypical leaders. In this article, we overview this prototypicality advantage and also explore the conditions under which it may be weakened or reversed. More specifically, we detail some of the conditions under which nonprototypical members can overcome the leadership obstacle of being “atypical” group members. One such condition is when members experience identity uncertainty. Under these conditions, group members seek clear and distinct group identities. When non‐prototypical group members can provide such clear group defining norms, they may be promoted to leadership positions and celebrated as agents of social change.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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