MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326185522 · doi:10.1111/cdep.12175

Evidence for Intuitive Morality: Preverbal Infants Make Sociomoral Evaluations

2016· article· en· W2326185522 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

VenueChild Development Perspectives · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoralityPsychologyIntuitionProsocial behaviorMoral developmentRationalitySocial cognitive theory of moralitySocial psychologyMoral reasoningMoral disengagementDevelopmental psychologyEpistemologyCognitive science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Traditional views of morality and moral development rooted in rationality and demonstrations of explicit reasoning suggest that moral evaluations emerge in childhood. In contrast, definitions of morality rooted in intuition allow scholars to examine the emergence of moral evaluations among those who cannot reason this way, such as human infants. Consistent with an intuition-based view of morality, infants evaluate prosocial individuals positively and evaluate antisocial individuals negatively. These evaluations are sensitive to the intent and epistemic states of the person who is helping or hindering, and to the previous behavior of the person who is being helped or hindered. Early-emerging intuitions regarding others' morally relevant behaviors may have evolved to support wide-scale cooperation in human societies.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.774
Threshold uncertainty score0.606

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.250
GPT teacher head0.389
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