MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401602984 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1379330

Interpersonal curiosity as a tool to foster safe relational spaces: a narrative literature review

2024· review· en· W4401602984 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological and Educational Research Studies
Canadian institutionsBishop's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCuriosityNarrativePsychologyFlourishingInterpersonal communicationSAFERSocial psychologyComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interpersonal curiosity (IPC), or the desire for information about others, is a core component of human connection, belonging, security, survival, and flourishing. Current research on leveraging IPC is scarce, making it an overlooked mechanism for building safer relational spaces. This narrative literature review attempts to answer the following questions: how can IPC facilitate safe relational spaces? How can this knowledge be made accessible and actionable for readers working in relational fields or public health? Results from the analysis of 23 articles indicate that IPC can manifest as either a trait or a state. At best, IPC can be a powerful tool for connection. At worst, IPC can lead to non-prosocial behaviors and relational disruptions. Suggestions are provided to harness the potential of IPC to foster quality connection and safer relational spaces.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.419
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.382 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it