MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mainland Chinese Adolescents' Judgments and Reasoning about Self‐determination and Nurturance Rights

2008· article· en· W2076432956 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 · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersGuangdong University of Foreign Studies
KeywordsPsychologyAutonomyMainland ChinaChinaSelf-determinationSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyWelfarePersonal autonomyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Younger (13 years) and older (17 years) adolescents (N = 160) from urban and rural China responded to written scenarios in which children's rights to self‐determination and nurturance conflicted with the desires of authorities. They also evaluated scenarios in which children's desire to exercise self‐determination was in conflict with their own welfare interests (nurturance). Older participants and those from urban settings were more likely than younger participants and those from rural settings to endorse self‐determination, both when in conflict with authority and nurturance. When supporting self‐determination, participants appealed to individual rights, autonomy, and personal choice in their justifications. The findings indicate that concepts of diverse types of rights are maintained by adolescents from both modern and traditional settings in China.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.289 · 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