‘Pressure creates diamonds’/‘fire refines gold’: Conceptualizing coping capital
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 While many consumer behavior studies have investigated consumer coping, few have considered it as a source of positive benefits in addition to being a matter of necessity. In this paper, we draw on Bourdieu’s notion of capital to introduce the concept of coping capital—the intentional or unintentional accumulation of resources, such as emotional and epistemic-competencies and skills resulting from coping with adversity, that may thereafter exist in an embodied state in the form of mental and physical dispositions—dispositions that later provide benefits in life. We suggest that the benefits of coping capital may be determined using either a prospective or a retrospective approach. These benefits may be anticipated or unanticipated when intentionally coping with adversity, while the benefits are predominantly unanticipated when unintentionally coping. By conceptualizing coping capital, our study makes a domain-level conceptual contribution to research on consumer coping. In addition the concept of coping capital may have broader implications outside of the domain of consumption.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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