MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Adolescent Naturalistic Conceptions of Moral Maturity

2011· article· en· W1876411091 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Development · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of PittsburghUniversity of Minnesota
KeywordsPsychologyMaturity (psychological)Moral developmentMoralitySocial cognitive theory of moralityDevelopmental psychologySimilarity (geometry)Moral disengagementSocial psychologySet (abstract data type)Moral reasoningMoral psychologyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Understanding lay conceptions of morality is important not only because they can guide moral psychology theory but also because they may play a role in everyday moral functioning. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine adolescent conceptions of moral maturity. Study 1 (200 adolescents 12–18 years) involved a free‐listing procedure to generate traits descriptive of a moral person. In Study 2, involving 100 early (11–14 years) and 99 late (15–18 years) adolescents, the moral person traits obtained in the first study were rated in terms of how well they described a moral person. Study 3, with 234 early (10–14 years) and 240 late (15–18 years) adolescents, entailed a similarity‐sorting task and a rating procedure similar to that from Study 2. This set of studies uncovered early and late adolescents' implicit typologies of moral maturity and pointed to possible age similarities and differences.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.856
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.281
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.023 · 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