MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319274105 · doi:10.1177/2041386611434655

Third party responses to justice failure

2012· article· en· W2319274105 on OpenAlexafffund
Luke Zhu, Jason P. Martens, Karl Aquino

Bibliographic record

VenueOrganizational Psychology Review · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsPunitive damagesEconomic JusticeCompensation (psychology)Identity (music)Social psychologyMeaning (existential)Procedural justicePsychologySocial identity theoryPolitical scienceLawSocial groupPerception

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a model that explores the consequences of justice failure. We conceptualize justice failure as a threat to meaning and suggest belief in a just world and justice climate as two moderators for the proposed relationship. We propose that individuals react to justice failure by engaging in fluid compensation and that third parties are more likely than victims of justice failure to engage in this process. We further propose that identity influences individuals’ reaction to justice failure such that individuals high in moral identity are more likely to affirm their moral domain than other domains. As a result of fluid compensation, we finally propose that individuals who affirm their moral domain are (a) more likely to act morally and less likely to act immorally (b) more punitive towards others who violate social norms and (c) more supportive of corporate social responsibility programs. Implications and future research directions are discussed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations30
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrganizational Psychology ReviewSame topicPsychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentFrench-language works237,207