Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents evidence concerning the changing ways in which young people of different cultures differently warrant their usual conviction that, notwithstanding outcroppings of evidence to the contrary, the logic of self-hood ordinarily requires individuals to be understood as synchronically unified across the various roles and contexts that they occupy. Despite the historically agreed upon importance attached to such matters, very little is known about how people ordinarily think about self-unity. Do they actually do work to maintain a synchronically unified conception of self in the face of what might be taken as contradictory evidence for chameleon-like change? If so, how do their efforts to solve the classic paradox of sameness within change vary as a function of their culture of origin? Students from a major Canadian university and a group of visiting students from Kyoto, Japan were asked to explain the prospect of disunity implied by: the fictional case of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde; the behaviours of other people they know; and by their own apparently contradictory behaviours. Responses were coded into one of four categories representing
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".