Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research was carried out as Study-1 and Study-2. In both studies, it was aimed to examine the factors that form the foundations of high school students' moral perception. In Study-1, data were collected with the Moral Foundations Questionnaire. In Study-1, high school students saw the concepts of Harm/Care, Fairness, Ingroup/Loyalty, Authority/Respect, and Purity/Sanctity related to morality and formed their judgments on social life basing on these foundations. In addition, it was observed that women got significantly higher scores than men in harm/care and fairness sub-factors. In Study-2, the moral perceptions of high school students were examined with open-ended questionnaire questions. According to the analysis of the results of the answers to open-ended questions, high school students highlighted the fields of social morality and sexual morality. Apart from these two areas, they also touched upon the areas of violent morality and individual morality. Thus, four areas of morality were identified in Study-2. In addition, it was observed that women in social morality and men in violent morality came to the fore negatively. In sexual morality, moral problems of women came to the fore in some codes and moral problems of men came to the fore in some codes. As a general result, it was seen in both studies that the foundations of high school students' moral perceptions were built on similar moral foundations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".