To err is human: Forgiveness across childhood and adolescence
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
Abstract This study examined children's and adolescents' narrative accounts and evaluations of an instance when they forgave a peer and an instance when they did not forgive, as well as their definitions of what it means to forgive. The sample included 100 participants in three age groups (7‐, 11‐, and 16‐year olds). Regardless of age, forgiveness and non‐forgiveness accounts differed in interpersonal features, such as how they responded when hurt and whether the peer apologized. The psychological features of the experiences involving their own thoughts and feelings also distinguished between events that were forgiven and those that were not, but did so for 16‐year olds and, sometimes, for 11‐year olds, but never for 7‐year olds. The distinct ways in which younger and older children narrated their experiences also were reflected in their evolving definitions of what it means to forgive, though children's definitions revealed aspects of their thinking not captured in their narratives. Finally, children at all ages judged forgiving favorably but, with age, their evaluations of not forgiving became less negative. These findings challenge the narrow conceptual and methodological lenses through which forgiveness had been examined, and underscore meaningful age differences in the ways children make sense of and evaluate forgiveness and non‐forgiveness.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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