Bibliographic record
Abstract
Der Zusammenhang zwischen sozialen Kognitionen und schwerer relativer Armut in einem Industrieland ist von der Forschung bisher kaum untersucht. In einem Experimental-Kontroll-Gruppen Design wurden 42 Wiener Wohnungslose Menschen mit einer nach Geschlecht und Alter parallelisierten Kontrollgruppe verglichen. Emotion Recognition, die Fähigkeit Gefühle bei anderen zu erkennen, wurde mittels einer Kurzversion des Geneva Emotion Recognition Test (GERT-S, Schlegel & Scherer, 2016) erhoben. Die Experimentalgruppe zeigte signifikante Ergebnisse. Auch nach Aufnahme von analytischem Denken (erhoben durch Items des Standardized Progressive Matrices Test; Kratzmeier & Horn, 1988), Alexithymia (erhoben mittels der Toronto Alexithymia Scale; Kupfer et al., 2001), Empathie (erhoben durch den Saarbrücker Persönlichkeitsfragebogen zur Messung von Empathie; Paulus, 2009) und demographischen Daten in das Modell blieb der Gruppeneffekt auf den GERT-S Score signifikant. Die Ergebnisse widersprechen der Theorie Kontexualismus und Solipsismus (engl. contextualism and solipsism; Kraus, Piff & Keltner, 2011), die in Ermangelung anderer Ressourcen erhöhte soziale Fertigkeiten bei Menschen mit niedrigem sozioökonomischen Status annimmt.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".