MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3027053496

자원분배를 통해 알아보는 아동들의 공정함에 대한 이해

2018· article· ko· W3027053496 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.024
Scholarly communication0.0100.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarly childhood educationSame topicDiverse Topics in Contemporary ResearchFrench-language works237,207