MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799585418 · doi:10.1080/15298868.2018.1468354

Is there a place in politics for compassion? The role of compassion in predicting hierarchy-legitimizing views

2018· article· en· W2799585418 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

VenueSelf and Identity · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial dominance orientationPsychologyCompassionSocial psychologyEgalitarianismEmpathyHierarchyPoliticsViewpointsBlameAuthoritarianismPolitical scienceDemocracy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Political beliefs underlie behaviors including voting and participation in collective resistance. Hierarchy-legitimizing beliefs can justify and perpetuate extant social hierarchies, such as economic inequality. Individual differences are important predictors of many political beliefs, but the role of compassion in this context has not been explored. This study investigated the relationship between dispositional compassion, which has shown promise in predicting enhanced prosociality, with hierarchy-legitimizing viewpoints, mediated by social dominance orientation (SDO). A sample of 590 undergraduate students completed measures of compassion, empathy, SDO, and sociopolitical policy views. Structural equation modeling showed that SDO mediated the relationship between compassion and hierarchy legitimization. The findings have implications for compassion’s relevance in political psychology, and for expanding understanding of the antecedents of anti-egalitarianism.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.320 · 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