Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this chapter, we make the case that cooperation is at the center of moral behavior by presenting insights on youth morality from neuroscience, psychology, and evolutionary science. First, we discuss the gaps in the sociological literature concerning youth morality. Instead of studying youth morality explicitly, sociologists often use proxies for morality such as norms, values, and socialization that underplay both youth’s agency in shaping their moral worlds and their innate cooperative abilities. As such, we argue that sociologists’ neglect of youth morality obscures our understanding of the interaction between the socialized and the innate aspects of moral development and behavior. Next, we review existing bio-psychological research that points to the innate aspects of cooperation and why cooperation may have been evolutionarily adaptive. In looking at the moral behaviors of infants, we see that moral judgment, a preference for pro-social versus anti-social others, and the ability to coordinate action, precede norm following and norm enforcing behaviors. We conclude this chapter by discussing the exciting opportunities that could result from interdisciplinary work on the morality of youth, and present some ideas for future directions in the areas of socialization, property and politics, and moral judgment and decision-making.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 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".