MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885715212 · doi:10.18290/rt.2018.65.5-11

Stages of Moral (Human) Development and Images of God

2018· article· en· W2885715212 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

VenueRoczniki Teologiczne · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEgo Development and Educational Practices
Canadian institutionsSaint Paul University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoral developmentHuman development (humanity)Social cognitive theory of moralitySpiritualityEnvironmental ethicsSociologyContext (archaeology)EpistemologyHuman lifeMoral disengagementPsychologySocial psychologyPhilosophyPolitical scienceLawHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In sharp contrast to views expressed in some earlier theories about life and human development, today human development is considered a “work in progress.” It is a continuous journey on which a person passes through various stages. This dynamic understanding of human development also characterizes moral development. The article's first part takes up these points. The second part focuses on the contextualized nature of this lifespan approach. Nature, heredity, culture, environment, gender, religion, and spirituality constitute the context within which moral development occurs. The third part highlights the need to educate people rather than merely indoctrinate them morally. The fourth part argues that in this dynamic understanding of moral development it is important to recognize ways in which social norms and moral (religious) precepts influence people.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.300 · 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