MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3027053496

자원분배를 통해 알아보는 아동들의 공정함에 대한 이해

2018· article· ko· W3027053496 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEarly childhood education · 2018
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Topics in Contemporary Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistributive justiceEquity (law)SociologyPsychologyEconomicsPolitical scienceEconomic JusticeLawMicroeconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

아동들이 공정한 분배(distributive justice)에 관한 결정을 내릴 때에는 균등(Equality)과 공평(Equity)에 관련된 요소들을 고려한다는 것이 그동안 진행되어온 대다수 기존 연구들의 결론이다. 다시 말해서, 특별한 전제 조건이 있지 않은한 아동들은 자원을 균등하게 배분하는 것이 공정한 분배라고 생각한다. 반면, 정당한 사유가 있는 경우에는 균등 분배보다는 해당 사유에 근거해 한 사람이 다른 사람들보다 더 많은 자원을 배분받는 것이 공정한 분배라고 인식한다(Olson & Spelke, 2008; Schmidt, Svetlova, Johe, & Tomasello, 2016). 이처럼 공정한 분배의 개념에 대한 아이들의 인식과 관련된 연구가 그동안 활발히 진행된 것에 비해, 해당 분야의 체계적인 문헌 조사는 상대적으로 미비한 실정이다. 이를 보완하기 위해, 본 논문은 아이들의 공정성과 관련한 사고 과정을 연구한 다양한 기존 논문들을 체계적으로 논의하고 정리하며, 해당 분야 연구의 향후 진행 방향에 대해서 새로운 시사점을 제공한다.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.631
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.011

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.308 · 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