El desarrollo moral y la toma de decisiones éticas del psicólogo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En una disciplina con las características de la psicología, la ética profesional es fundamental. Las universidades, asociaciones, colegios y otros tipos de organizaciones de psicólogos alrededor del mundo consideran de gran relevancia a la ética para la formación y el ejercicio de la profesión. Para clarificar los procesos involucrados en el comportamiento ético profesional, en las últimas décadas surgen diversos modelos de toma de decisiones éticas, principalmente en disciplinas como medicina, enfermería y el derecho, entre otras. La posibilidad de poner en práctica un proceso de toma de decisiones éticas requiere que las personas presenten ciertas habilidades que han sido investigadas por diversos autores, dando lugar al constructo de “razonamiento moral”. En este artículo se reporta el análisis de las características de desarrollo del razonamiento moral que un psicólogo requiere para cumplir con las exigencias de la ética profesional desde la perspectiva de las principales teorías que lo han abordado.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".