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
At times, goals seem to conflict, pulling people in opposite directions; at other times, they appear to complement or even facilitate one another, creating harmony. We propose and test a theoretical framework for understanding the antecedents and consequences of perceived goal harmony. We find that goal harmony can be enhanced through the cognitive process of mental integration, which includes identifying connections between goals (e.g., considering how holding a job supports parenting) and creating multifinal means (e.g., considering how a means to job success can also serve parenting). Additionally, goal harmony is acquired through social learning. People in five collectivistic countries reported greater goal harmony than those in five individualistic countries (e.g., more harmony in India and China than in the Netherlands and the United States), and men reported more harmony between their work and family goals than women. We further find that goal harmony predicts and causally increases motivation and well-being. Interventions designed to promote goal harmony enhanced prosocial behaviors and encouraged healthier eating habits. Further, individuals who perceived greater goal harmony were more likely to stick to their New Year's resolutions over a 2-month period. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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