MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2270720830 · doi:10.1159/000433502

What Develops in Moral Identities? A Critical Review

2015· review· en· W2270720830 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

VenueHuman Development · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicIdentity, Memory, and Therapy
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstruct (python library)Social cognitive theory of moralityMoral developmentMoral disengagementIdentity (music)Moral psychologyContext (archaeology)PsychologySocial psychologyMoral reasoningDevelopmental stage theoriesMoral authorityScope (computer science)EpistemologySociologyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to the standard model of moral identity development, moral identities emerge during adolescence and early adulthood. Contrary to this assumption, however, moral identity research has consistently failed to demonstrate any age-related change in this developmental period. The present paper discusses implications of this non-finding. It is argued that researchers need to broaden the scope of inquiry and include developmental aspects of the moral identity construct that have been neglected in the past. Three areas are identified where moral identity development likely occurs in adolescence and beyond: (1) context-dependent differentiation and integration of the self-importance of moral values, (2) growth in internal moral motivation and (3) unfolding of narratives of moral responsibility. It is suggested that any systematic investigation into these areas will reveal important developmental changes in moral identities and, thus, will confirm the developmental nature of the moral identity construct.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.849
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.008

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 head0.306
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.178 · 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