MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997223392 · doi:10.1177/0093854800027003004

Moral Intelligence in a Sample of Incarcerated Females

2000· article· en· W1997223392 on OpenAlexaff
Margo C. Watt, SILVIA FRAUSIN, Jeannette L. Dixon, SANDRA NIMMO

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminal Justice and Behavior · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Community Safety and Correctional ServicesSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySocializationEmpathySample (material)Scale (ratio)Clinical psychologyRecidivismSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated moral intelligence in a sample of 22 incarcerated females, comparing their performance to that of 20 incarcerated males and to a community sample of 23 women. Volunteers completed four self-report measures, including a demographics measure, Adult Nowicki-Strickland Internal-External Control Scale, Hogan Empathy Scale, and the Socialization, Responsibility, and Self-Control subscales of the California Psychological Inventory, plus three moral dilemmas. The main findings were as follows: (a) With respect to moral character, female inmates more closely resembled their male counterparts than they did the community women; (b) with respect to moral reasoning, female inmates were more apt to embrace an ethic of care versus justice than either of the other two groups; (c) discriminant function analysis revealed that the three groups were best distinguished by their scores on the socialization measure; and (d) females convicted of violent offenses had higher self-control scores than did other participants.

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)0.000
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 score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.231
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.125 · 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

Citations18
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCriminal Justice and BehaviorSame topicPsychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentFrench-language works237,207