MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970776485 · doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2004.01.020

Support for Reidenbach and Robin’s (1990) eight-item multidimensional ethics scale

2004· article· en· W1970776485 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Robert Loo

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Social Science Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEthics in Business and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersUniversity of Lethbridge
KeywordsScale (ratio)Ethical egoismUtilitarianismRelativismPsychologyContractualismSocial psychologyEquity (law)Business ethicsItem response theorySociologyPsychometricsEconomicsEpistemologyManagementPhilosophyPolitical scienceDevelopmental psychologyLawLaw and economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Re-analyses of data from two independent studies using samples (N=216 and 247) of Canadian management undergraduates showed support for Reidenbach and Robin’s [J. Business Ethics 7 (1988) 871] eight-item ethics scale derived from their full 38-item scale. The principal component analyses of ethics scores from the three scenarios used in each study supported the three constructs, Moral Equity, Relativism, and Contractualism. Importantly, scores were independent of social desirability scores. This short ethics scale, comprising three construct scores and a total score, can be recommended when administration time is limited. It should be noted that this short scale does not include any items from the egoism and utilitarianism ethics theories reflected in the full scale.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.104
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.104
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.249
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations24
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Social Science JournalSame topicEthics in Business and EducationFrench-language works237,207