MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2988171186 · doi:10.1080/15427560.2019.1663850

Are Time Preference and Risk Preference Associated with Cognitive Intelligence and Emotional Intelligence?

2019· article· en· W2988171186 on OpenAlex

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 Behavioral Finance · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotional Intelligence and Performance
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreferencePsychologyCognitionEmotional intelligenceCognitive psychologyIntelligence quotientRealmHuman intelligenceSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors investigated whether cognitive intelligence (intelligence quotient [IQ]) and emotional intelligence (emotional quotient [EQ]) meaningfully correlate with time preference and risk preference, finding solid evidence in support. In the realm of time preference, high-EQ individuals are less subject to present (or future) bias and more patient. Further, high-IQ subjects tend to exhibit preferences that conform to expected utility maximization. While recent research on the relationship between cognitive ability and preferences has provided important insights, the results suggest that both cognitive intelligence and emotional intelligence matter.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.231 · 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