Group over need: Convergence in the influence of recipient characteristics on children's sharing in Iran and Canada
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 Children are remarkably concerned with fairness, yet social evaluations often lead to partiality in fairness behavior. For instance, children share more generously with in‐group peers and allocate resources based on the material need of recipients. The goal of the present study was to examine how children developing in Canada and Iran privilege group status and recipient need when allocating resources. We assigned children (5–6 years of age) from Canada ( n = 42) and Iran ( N = 46) to teams using the minimal group paradigm and allowed them to allocate resources between themselves and recipients who varied in terms of need (high and low) and group status (in‐group and out‐group). No effect of recipient need was found in either society. In both societies, children were not impacted by need, but were more likely to give up a personal advantage and allocate resources equally with in‐group recipients. Our findings reveal convergence across diverse societies in the influence of in‐group bias on children's resource allocation decisions.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it