Competition when cooperation is the means to success: Understanding context and recognizing mutually beneficial situations
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
Choosing to cooperate or to compete is a regular and important social decision. Certain scenarios call for one over the other, but people do not always behave logically. The present study describes trends to irrationally compete when cooperation is the means to success. A paradigm similar to the Kagan and Madsen (1971) checkers-style game was used in which cooperation resulted in mutual benefit and competition resulted in nothing. The participants in this 25-year observational study were adult university students and coaches, and though they are presumed to be rational thinkers, the large majority of them contradictorily competed. In the rare cases of cooperation during these games, at least one person in the pair tended to come from a rural or community-oriented background; this is a phenomenon worth acknowledging. To be successful, it is essential to understand the full context of a situation in order to recognize mutually beneficial situations. It is necessary to understand cooperative and competitive behaviors to meaningfully advance societal activities as well as maximizing individual benefits.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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