AKASHICNET · HISTORICAL CURATION · REVIEWED 24 OCTOBER 2026
When care becomes action
Three bounded additions to the BQ011 research map: opportunity, responsibility and competing rewards. An additional grief-support appraisal follows below. These are earlier 2026 publications selected for assessment, not new-publication alerts. First discovery dates are unknown.
Candidate
Relevance
Quality at current access
Review priority
Volunteering encouragement
5/5: actual subsequent action
3/5: randomisation, but mechanism assumptions and private data
1
Gratitude and bystanders
5/5: emotion versus group context
Withheld: abstract-only appraisal
2
Nature competing with helping
5/5: ecological action trade-off
Withheld: incomplete methods access
3
HISTORICAL BACKLOG · EMPIRICAL FIELD EXPERIMENT
Is volunteering a gateway to increased monetary giving?
149,480 recent nonprofit contacts were randomised to baseline recruitment emails or three additional encouragement emails. Recorded volunteering was 6.29% versus 5.72%; giving seven weeks later was 0.41% versus 0.31%. These correspond to rounded absolute increases of 0.57 and 0.10 percentage points, not 10 and 32 points. Per-donor amounts did not significantly differ.
The randomised estimate concerns email encouragement. Attributing giving to volunteering itself uses an instrumental-variable exclusion restriction: extra emails must affect giving only through volunteering. Familiarity or goodwill could provide another route; this is an appraisal limitation, not an observed explanation. Membership benefits complicate interpretation as pure altruism.
One organisation; preregistration/blinding, numerical intervals, funding/conflicts and independent replication unverified. Data are under nondisclosure agreement. Scope: selected publisher methods/results/discussion/data statement; no full table or raw-data audit. Reuse licence unverified. Moderate confidence. BQ009/BQ011; ADAPT/HOMESENSE. Next: examine absolute-risk intervals and instrument sensitivity.
867 participants were randomised to gratitude, calm or neutral conditions. They made resource-allocation decisions with one, three or five possible benefactors. Gratitude promoted giving, but did not significantly moderate the reduction in giving as the number of possible helpers increased.
This separates an emotion effect from the hypothesised protection against diffusion of responsibility. The null interaction does not establish exact equivalence. Effect sizes/intervals, final exclusions, allocation concealment/blinding, stage-one acceptance and registration chronology, funding/conflicts, dataset/version/licence and independent replication remain unverified.
Scope: primary indexed PubMed abstract/metadata; publisher full text blocked. Moderate confidence in abstract; limited confidence in generalisation to emergencies or durable care. BQ005/BQ009/BQ011; ADAPT/ACTC. Next: retrieve accepted protocol and quantify interaction uncertainty before asserting a boundary.
HISTORICAL BACKLOG · THREE EXPERIMENTS · INCOMPLETE APPRAISAL
Participants chose between nature/urban-traffic videos and effortful donation-generating slider tasks. Studies 1–2 reported greater preference for nature than traffic videos relative to helping; Study 3’s corresponding advantage was nonsignificant for hypothetical environmental choices. This tests a simultaneous opportunity cost, not simply what happens after nature exposure.
The authors report three OSF-preregistered studies and materials/data/scripts at OSF 3z5ah. Registration timing, repository contents, final sample sizes, effect sizes/intervals, blinding, funding/conflicts and direct independent replication unverified. Targeting 260 participants per study is not an analysis denominator.
Scope: indexed publisher excerpts and Amsterdam institutional metadata; direct publisher access blocked. Full text, supplement and raw data not reviewed; reuse unverified. Moderate confidence in reported pattern, limited generalisation. BQ008/BQ011; REGENERATE/ADAPT. Next: recover final samples and consequential-choice details.
HISTORICAL BACKLOG · GRIEF SUPPORT · 24 OCTOBER REVIEW
A grief-support trial: keep the primary null visible
126 adolescents received Alba (61) or web psychoeducation (65), unblinded. Five siblings were assigned nonrandomly to the same arm. The primary two-month prolonged-grief contrast was nonsignificant (model p=.14); six months was also null. At twelve months, a secondary follow-up, the reported difference favoured Alba: d=0.64, 95% CI 0.18–1.10. Personal growth showed no effect.
Twelve-month responses numbered 84. Missing-at-random assumptions, symptom-related dropout, self-report and limited demographic diversity constrain interpretation. Negative experiences were reported by 9/45 respondents. The internal pilot shares this cohort, not an independent replication.
Scope: selected publisher methods/results/discussion; registry chronology, supplements, raw data and independent replication unverified. Data available on request. Swedish Cancer Society/Forte funding; no conflicts declared. Reuse unverified. Relevance 5/5 to grief support; provisional quality 3/5; moderate confidence. Next: audit registration and missing-data sensitivity. This does not test survival.
Coverage, deduplication and receipt
CARE-ACTION-20261024-B09 · v1 · review date 2026-10-24
Identifiers: 10.1007/s11002-026-09820-x; 10.1080/02699931.2026.2699829; 10.1016/j.jenvp.2026.103033. No exact identifier matches for the three behavioural records in selected Corpus-Rotation-Ledger v241 find or Library search. The Alba identifier also had no selected ledger match; this does not certify global novelty. Global cross-task novelty and cohort independence remain uncertified.
Suppressed as already recorded: brief compassion SoVT study 10.1038/s41598-025-16416-4; loneliness trial 10.1093/scan/nsag015; out-group empathy study 10.1007/s12671-023-02100-z; LKM pain study 10.1371/journal.pone.0357888. They were not added as new candidates.
Bounded topic rotation, not a full 155-family scan. Primary publisher text readable for the field experiment; publisher-indexed excerpts/primary abstract for the other two. Several direct publisher and PMC requests were blocked or challenged. Designated 16-source inventory not systematically checked this batch; OSF links identified but repository files not inspected. No new scan boundary or monthly/daily completion is certified.
Follow-up receipt: GRIEF-ALBA-20261024-B10, DOI 10.2196/94777, NCT06093113; first discovery unknown, review 24 October 2026. No independent replication asserted. Top next priorities: field-experiment instrument assumptions and intervals; gratitude protocol/interaction precision; nature study final samples and consequential outcomes. Proposed destination: Atlas/BQ011 methods comparison for editorial review. Published editorial review; no canonical ingestion or accepted graph edges. supports_models=[].
AI-executed source retrieval and deduplication; AI-suggested appraisal. No participant-level reanalysis. Source-access scope remains limited as recorded; publication checks do not validate study results.
