MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405644489 · doi:10.1111/camh.12756

Narrative Matters: Is obedience good? the classics may surprise us

2024· article· en· W4405644489 on OpenAlexaff
Mervyn Nicholson

Bibliographic record

VenueChild and Adolescent Mental Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPsychology of Social Influence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObedienceSurpriseNarrativeMilgram experimentPsychologyInvisibilitySocial psychologyParagraphForm of the GoodEpistemologyPhilosophySociologyLawPolitical scienceLinguisticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We are conditioned not to see some of the most potent facts; one of these repressed facts is the common assumption that goodness is the same as obedience - you are good if you 'do what you're told' - and bad if you are disobedient. To illustrate how this invisibility of social conditioning works, some very famous stories are helpful, both for how this conditioning works and for how it is resisted, because, simply put, obedience is not the same as being good.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.342 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild and Adolescent Mental HealthSame topicPsychology of Social InfluenceFrench-language works237,207