Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to examine intergenerational equity (concern for future generations) from a human evolutionary ecology perspective. The extent to which males and females differ in their concern about the welfare of future generations can be interpreted as a product of natural selection. We hypothesized that reproductive advantage is conferred upon males by discounting future generations and focusing on their immediate well being. Given that males potentially have many children, and do not invest the same resources in raising children, it is to their reproductive advantage to focus on the present and their own wellbeing, so that they can continue to reproduce. It is hypothesized that reproductive advantage would be conferred upon females who are concerned about future generations. Females potentially have fewer children and invest more in raising children. It is therefore more to their reproductive advantage to ensure that children survive to adulthood. Using a between‐subjects design online survey, emailed to individuals in the Queen's Community (Students, Staff, Faculty, and Alumni), we asked participants to indicate what proportion of available money ($10, 000 they received by chance) they would allocate to mitigating a hypothetical food crisis (collectivist option) versus to three “individualist” options. Participants were randomly assigned to hypothetical scenarios where the food crisis affected: the participant's generation, their children's generation, their grandchildren's generation, or their great‐ grandchildren's generation. In all four scenarios, we found that males invested significantly less in mitigating the food crisis than females. Additionally, we found that neither males nor females differed significantly between scenarios in the amount they invested in mitigating the food crisis.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".