MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2602724288 · doi:10.1177/1052562917701501

Teaching Behavioral Ethics: Overcoming the Key Impediments to Ethical Behavior

2017· article· en· W2602724288 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

VenueOrganizational Behavior Teaching Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEthics in Business and Education
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthical decisionFraming (construction)PsychologyMoral developmentProcess (computing)CognitionEngineering ethicsSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To better understand the ethical decision-making process and why individuals fail to act ethically, the aim of this article is to explore what are seen as the key impediments to ethical behavior and their pedagogical implications. Using the ethical decision-making process proposed by Rest as an overarching framework, the article examines the following barriers to ethical decision making: improper framing, which can preclude moral awareness; cognitive biases and psychological tendencies, which can hinder reaching proper moral judgments; and moral rationalizations, which can obstruct moral judgments from being translated into moral intentions or ethical behavior. Next, pedagogical exercises and tools for teaching behavioral ethics and ethical decision making are provided. The article concludes with its implications.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0080.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.279
GPT teacher head0.517
Teacher spread0.237 · 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