MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Understanding consumers’ moral consciousness

2005· article· en· W2171488069 on OpenAlex
Sue L. T. McGregor

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

VenueInternational Journal of Consumer Studies · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEthics in Business and Education
Canadian institutionsMount Saint Vincent University
FundersColorado State University
KeywordsConsciousnessMoralityConscienceMoral developmentSocial cognitive theory of moralityMoral disengagementConsumption (sociology)Moral psychologyMoral reasoningSociologyField (mathematics)PsychologyEpistemologyEnvironmental ethicsSocial psychologyPhilosophySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The issue driving this paper is ‘Why don’t people, in their consumer role, have a well developed moral conscience?’ To address this compelling question, the paper explores the moral consciousness of consumption behaviour (or lack thereof). The first part of the paper provides brief overviews of: (1) moral consciousness applied to consumption, (2) the essence of morality and ethics, (3) four facets of the field of ethics, (4) two moral development models, and (5) the affective domain of learning. The intent is to prepare the reader for a discussion of an approach to understanding the moral consciousness of consumption that integrates particular concepts drawn from the theory of ethics and morality with the moral development models and the affective domain of learning.

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)0.007
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 score0.431
Threshold uncertainty score0.870

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.645
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.139 · 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