Days of Future Past: Concerns for the Group’s Future Prompt Longing for Its Past (and Ways to Reclaim It)
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
In this article, we summarize recent research on collective angst (i.e., concern for one’s group’s future vitality) and collective nostalgia (i.e., sentimental longing for the in-group’s past) and emphasize their interconnections and predictive utility. We also put forth the supposition that the source of the collective angst that group members are feeling can influence the content of collective nostalgia (i.e., what group members are longing for), which has consequences for the attitudes and actions that group members will support to protect the group’s vitality. Political rhetoric tends to capitalize on the relation between these emotions by making specific existential threats salient to elicit specific associated collective nostalgizing, followed by promises to “bring back the good old days”—days when the source of the threat was (ostensibly) absent. In sum, the content of collective nostalgia matters for understanding what action tendencies group members will support to assuage the specific (perceived) threats to their group.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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