“Hey everyone, look at me helping you!”: A contingency view of the relationship between exhibitionism and peer-oriented helping behaviors
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
This research investigates how an understudied personal resource (exhibitionism) might positively connect with peer-oriented helping behavior, as well as how this connection might be invigorated by four pertinent contextual resources: two resources that speak to beliefs about fair organizational treatment (informational justice and procedural justice) and two resources that capture how employees feel about their work functioning (job satisfaction and organizational commitment). Two-wave survey data collected among banking sector employees reveal that their desire to be the center of attention is associated with an enhanced propensity to extend help to other organizational peers, voluntarily. This process also is more likely when employees (1) believe that organizational authorities provide them with sufficient information, (2) perceive organizational procedures as fair, (3) feel happy with their current job situation, and (4) experience a strong emotional bond with their employer. JEL Classification: M50
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 | 0.001 |
| 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