The future is now: Age-progressed images motivate community college students to prepare for their financial futures.
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
Part of the challenge young people face when preparing for lifelong financial security is visualizing the far-off future. Age-progression technology has been shown to motivate young people to save for retirement. The current study applied age progression for motivating socioeconomically diverse community college students as part of a college planning course. We recruited 106 students enrolled in a mandatory "Transitioning to College" course and randomly assigned them to view age-progressed or same-aged digital avatars. Compared to controls, age-progressed participants gave more correct answers and exhibited higher confidence (i.e., fewer "don't know" responses) on a financial literacy test. Confidence mediated the effect of age progression on correct responses, but not the other way around, pointing to financial confidence as a precursor to effective financial education. Students also reported interest in attending more long-term financial planning workshops (e.g., investing and retirement) available through their college. No differences were observed in financial planning for the near term (e.g., student aid and credit cards). The current study demonstrates the viability of age progression as a practical, inexpensive, and scalable intervention. Findings also illustrate the significance of this intervention for reducing pervasive socioeconomic and age disparities in financial knowledge and enhancing long-term financial prospects across future generations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it