MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071036831 · doi:10.1080/15534510.2012.674745

The role of right wing authoritarianism on the repentance–forgiveness process

2012· article· en· W2071036831 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 Influence · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicForgiveness and Related Behaviors
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepentanceForgivenessPsychologySocial psychologyAuthoritarianismTheologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this research was to examine the role of right wing authoritarianism (RWA; Altemeyer, 1996) and social norms, or expectations of proper social conduct, in the repentance–forgiveness process. Two studies systematically revealed a negative relation between RWA and forgiveness, a positive effect of repentance on forgiveness, and a significant interaction between RWA and repentance on forgiveness. The interaction, in both studies, showed that there was a stronger positive relation between repentance and forgiveness for those who were high in RWA compared to those who were low in RWA. The results of Study 2 also showed that the interaction between RWA and repentance on forgiveness was explained by the victim's perception of the transgressor's response as proper. These results help to further establish the boundary conditions under which repentance influences forgiveness and the mechanisms underlying its effects.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.829
Threshold uncertainty score0.690

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.306 · 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