Leaderspeak – An Evolutionary Psychology Approach to Reducing Gaps in Strategic Communication
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
The gaps that strategic communication has to bridge have widened due to competing values driven by self-interest versus superordinate organizational goals.We propose a higher-order comprehensive model, grounded in a) the social behavioral aspects of evolutionary psychology and strategic communication; b) evolutionary game theory reciprocity; and c) the niche construction of leadership.We offer the concept of 'leaderspeak', which brings into effect the concepts of collaborative and mutually beneficial relations, altruism, spite, and selfishness.In this paper, we seek to parse the role of reciprocity, altruism, and how receivers are motivated to respond to leader communication (leaderspeak, i.e., leader communication that considers all the multi-modal affordances of language, including non-verbal communication, to outline the intent of the leader).This is an initial attempt to delve deeper into the evolving human need while ensuring reciprocity between the sender and receiver.Our aim is to understand and address the attitude, "I hear you, and get what you want me to do for you, so what's in it for me?"
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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