New Perspectives on Justice: Interfacing Justice Scholarship with Social/Cognitive Psychology
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present symposium, we showcase research that is at the interface between justice scholarship and social/cognitive psychology theory, and which advances our understanding of organizational justice by examining justice processes through novel theoretical perspectives. The papers in this symposium ground their predictions in self-regulation theory (Carver & Scheier, 1981), construal level theory (Trope & Liberman, 2010), regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997), and theories of need fulfillment (e.g., Baumeister & Leary, 1995). In so doing, the studies focus on the processes involved in the psychological experience of justice and injustice–on how and why employees react as they do. Notably, they do so using a number of robust designs, including daily diary studies, experiments, and studies employing new philosophies for measuring justice. More generally, by focusing on the interface between justice scholarship and mainstream social/cognitive psychology, this symposium will facilitate a conversation regarding the benefits of increasing connections to outside bodies of knowledge and the potential dangers of failing to do so.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it