Does the Situation and/or Caregiver-Child Relationship Influence Perceptions of Intentionality When a Child is Hurt?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This study will explore possible variables underpinning cases where women have been wrongfully convicted of harming a child when no crime actually occurred. To do this, we created vignettes where a caregiver (of different relationships to the child) called 911 because a child was hurt (in different scenarios, all inspired by actual documented cases of wrongful conviction). One possible reason that women are more likely to be wrongfully convicted in these situations is simply because they are more likely to be in these situations (i.e., caring for children). Thus, first we are testing whether people are more likely to picture women in these situations than men. In addition, parents—particularly mothers—have been wrongfully convicted in these scenarios. Thus, second, we are testing if participants' beliefs about the involvement of mothers and fathers in childcare responsibilities in general, and/or childcare emergency situations in particular, predicts the likelihood that they pictured the parent in the vignettes as a woman or a man. In addition to the research questions described above, we are using this study to pilot test stimuli. For pilot testing, participants will be shown five vignettes of five different situations that led to a 911 call where a child was injured, with different caregiver-child relationships in each vignette (and relationship counterbalanced across all vignettes across participants). These vignettes, and the caregiver-child relationships, were created based on real Canadian cases of wrongful conviction where a child died or was injured, but no crime actually occurred (i.e., the death was due to natural causes or was an accident). After reading each vignette (matched with a different caregiver-child relationship, randomized across participants), participants will be asked about: a) perceived caregiver demographics, b) perceived caregiver-child relationship closeness, c) violation of expectations, d) moral agency, e) suspiciousness, and f) willingness to treat the caregiver as a suspect. Other than perceived caregiver gender, these other dependent variables are for pilot testing only. We will be exploring the impact of the different situations and relationships on these variables, and selecting stimuli for future studies based on the findings (e.g., selecting vignettes that differ in suspiciousness vs. selecting vignettes that do not differ in suspiciousness). After seeing all five vignettes, participants will also be asked questions regarding perceptions of what caregiving role spends the most time raising children and/or responsible for handling emergency situations involving children. The items regarding parents will be used for one of our planned analyses, but all relationships from the vignettes were included for exploratory purposes to help inform stimuli selection for future studies and/or interpretation of the pilot testing findings.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».