MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4239287662 · doi:10.1159/000492803

Normative Changes and Individual Differences in Early Moral Judgments: A Constructivist Developmental Perspective

2018· article· en· W4239287662 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Development · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoral developmentMoralityNormativePsychologySocial cognitive theory of moralityPerspective (graphical)Moral disengagementSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyMoral reasoningConstructivist teaching methodsEpistemologyTeaching methodPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper discusses the emergence and development of morality as a distinct form of social knowledge in early childhood. Drawing on social domain theory, we define morality in terms of individuals’ concerns regarding others’ welfare, fair treatment, rights, and the equitable distribution of resources. Moral judgments are described as building on early predispositions but constructed through children’s varied social experiences. We highlight some of the morally relevant interactions in the first few years of life that contribute to early moral development and then summarize evidence regarding young children’s increasing ability to distinguish moral and nonmoral concepts in their judgments. Consistent with our constructivist emphasis, we also draw attention to sources of individual differences in early moral judgment development. We conclude with some suggestions for future research that build on the innovative methods and new findings reported here to further expand our understanding of early moral development.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.245
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.230 · 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