MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1500145441 · doi:10.1348/026151010x508083

Positively versus negatively charged moral emotion expectancies in adolescence: The role of situational context and the developing moral self

2010· article· en· W1500145441 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Developmental Psychology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotions and Moral Behavior
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPridePsychologyProsocial behaviorValence (chemistry)Situational ethicsSocial psychologyMoral disengagementContext (archaeology)Developmental psychologyMoral development

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study analyses adolescents' positively charged versus negatively charged moral emotion expectancies. Two hundred and five students (M= 14.83 years, SD= 2.21) participated in an interview depicting various situations in which a moral norm was either regarded or transgressed. Emotion expectancies were assessed for specific emotions (pride, guilt) as well as for overall strength and valence. In addition, self-importance of moral values was measured by a questionnaire. Results revealed that positively charged emotion expectancies were more pronounced in contexts of prosocial action than in the context of moral transgressions, whereas the opposite was true for negatively charged emotions. At the same time, expectations of guilt and pride were substantially related to the self-importance of moral values.

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 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 score0.533
Threshold uncertainty score0.496

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.277 · 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