MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114532951 · doi:10.1037/h0087196

Attributions for serious illness: Are controllability, responsibility and blame different constructs?

2003· article· en· W2114532951 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WindsorUniversity of TorontoCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlameAttributionPsychologyControllabilitySocial psychologyCognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined whether judgments of controllability, responsibility, and blame are distinct and sequential psychological constructs. Undergraduates read a brief description of a male with AIDS or lung cancer and rated his controllability, responsibility, and blame in relation to the illness. Participants considered him to be more responsible than blameworthy for his illness, but more in control than responsible for becoming ill. Although measures of participants’ behavioural intentions, emotions, and social attitudes were correlated with controllability ratings, such associations were stronger for responsibility ratings and even stronger for blame ratings. Structural equation models provided additional evidence for an attributional hierarchy in which blame is the final step. Nonetheless, emotional and behavioural responses were more completely explained when attributions were considered jointly with personal and social attitudes.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.011
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.176
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.108 · 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