MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2907599141 · doi:10.5539/ies.v12n1p53

Humane Attitudes and Empathic Tendencies in Chinese Young People: Implications for Humane Education

2018· article· en· W2907599141 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnimal and Plant Science Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEducation University of Hong Kong
KeywordsEmpathyPsychologyInterpersonal Reactivity IndexAnimal welfareInterpersonal communicationAnimal-assisted therapyInterpersonal relationshipDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyEmpathic concernHigher educationPerspective-takingPet therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is the first study to investigate humane attitudes toward animals and empathic tendencies toward humans among Chinese adolescents and young adults. The present study administered two scales, the Animal Attitude Scale (AAS) and Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI), to 471 Hong Kong secondary school and university students who were between the ages of 14 and 25. The findings of the present study suggest that Chinese secondary school and university students tend to consider the instrumental value of animals used for the benefit of humans. Animal use for luxury purposes was most unacceptable, while animal use for survival purposes was most acceptable to these students. The many undecided responses on animal welfare issues might reflect students’ lack of knowledge regarding the availability of non-animal alternatives in our lives. The results also show that there is a strong link between humane attitudes and human empathy in the young people in Hong Kong. Gender and education level were found to be significant factors of a humane attitude as well as human-directed empathy. The current study implies that a humane education (HE) program could be particularly beneficial to the empathy development of male adolescents.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.001
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 score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.561

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.391 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicAnimal and Plant Science EducationFrench-language works237,207