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 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

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.

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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.198
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.249
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