Bibliographic record
Abstract
Moral norms vary across cultures. A recent line of work suggests that English large language models contain human-like moral biases, but these studies typically do not examine moral variation in a diverse cultural setting. We investigate the extent to which monolingual English language models contain knowledge about moral norms in different countries. We consider two levels of analysis: 1) whether language models capture fine-grained moral variation across countries over a variety of topics such as "homosexuality" and "divorce"; 2) whether language models capture cultural diversity and shared tendencies in which topics people around the globe tend to diverge or agree on in their moral judgment. We perform our analyses with two public datasets from the World Values Survey (across 55 countries) and PEW global surveys (across 40 countries) on morality. We find that pre-trained English language models predict empirical moral norms across countries worse than the English moral norms reported previously. However, fine-tuning language models on the survey data improves inference across countries at the expense of a less accurate estimate of the English moral norms. We discuss the relevance and challenges of incorporating cultural knowledge into the automated inference of moral norms.
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 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".