MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151460761 · doi:10.1111/bjdp.12084

Sharing without caring? Respect for moral others compensates for low sympathy in children's sharing

2015· article· en· W2151460761 on OpenAlexafffund
Antonio Zuffianò, Tyler Colasante, Joanna Peplak, Tina Malti

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Developmental Psychology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsMuscular Dystrophy CanadaUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSympathyDictator gamePsychologyGenerositySocial psychologyProsocial behaviorPromotion (chess)Sample (material)Developmental psychologyChemistryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined links between sharing, respect for moral others, and sympathy in an ethnically diverse sample of 7- and 15-year-olds (N = 146). Sharing was assessed through children's allocation of resources in the dictator game. Children reported their respect towards hypothetical characters performing moral acts. Sympathy was evaluated via caregiver and child reports. Respect and caregiver-reported sympathy interacted in predicting sharing: Higher levels of respect were associated with higher levels of sharing for children with low, but not medium or high, levels of sympathy. The motivational components of other-oriented respect may compensate for low levels of sympathetic concern in the promotion of sharing.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations15
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Developmental PsychologySame topicChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207