Individual differences in exploring versus exploiting and links to delay discounting
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 Sometimes, we must choose between obtaining an immediate reward or foregoing it in favor of searching for a better reward elsewhere. Such decisions have been characterized as involving exploration‐exploitation trade‐offs. Here, we studied the reliability and basis of individual differences in tasks involving choices between exploration and exploitation. In Studies 1, 2, and 4, we found little evidence for a stable individual difference in tendency to explore (vs. exploit). Additionally, we tested delay discounting as a potential predictor of individual differences in exploration. In Studies 3 and 4, we found that delay discounting was inconsistently predictive of exploration behavior. Our results support the claim that people adapt their exploration behavior to the environment in which they find themselves. This adaptation overrides any general preference to explore environments more or less than other people. Our results also suggest that predictors of exploration may be exclusively restricted to the particular environment in which they were observed. Implications for past and future research of exploration‐exploitation decision making are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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