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
. In an investigation spanning six countries (Belgium, India, Italy, Pakistan, the United Kingdom, and United States) on three continents, and more than 10,000 unique participants, we use cross-sectional, longitudinal, and experimental methods to provide foundational evidence for the zero-sum mindset. In Studies 1-5 (Concept), we show that the zero-sum mindset is distinct from existing concepts, stable over time, and predictive of disparate instances of zero-sum thinking and its strategic implications across domains and cultures. In Studies 6-7 (Cognitions), we show that zero-sum configurations of success promote hostile interpretations of others and that the zero-sum mindset predicts this bias even in objectively non-zero-sum situations. In Studies 8-9 (Consequences), we show that the zero-sum mindset predicts lower cooperation even in situations where cooperation is a matter of life or death. These findings call attention to the way lay game theories such as the zero-sum mindset bear critical implications for the cognitions and attitudes that drive social behavior and success. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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