MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Roots of Moral Reasoning and Behavior in Infants

2015· other· en· W1488889386 on OpenAlexaff
J. Kiley Hamlin, Conor M. Steckler

Bibliographic record

VenueEmerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences · 2015
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProsocial behaviorMoralityPsychologyMoral behaviorMoral developmentMoral reasoningSocial psychologyMoral disengagementDevelopmental psychologyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recent findings suggest that toddlers and infants engage in prosocial behaviors and evaluate potential social partners based on their morally relevant social acts. Together, this evidence suggests that some foundational aspects of human morality may stem from universal and unlearned features of the human mind. That is, despite the clear role of learning processes in much of moral development, basic motivations to cooperate with and help others, as well as an ability to judge third parties based on their prosocial and antisocial acts, may underlie and constrain those processes. Here, we review the current state of the literature on these topics and point to important remaining issues and future directions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.388
Threshold uncertainty score0.591

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral SciencesSame topicChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207