MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409838428 · doi:10.1111/soc4.70063

Moral Language and Political Polarisation: An Overview

2025· article· en· W4409838428 on OpenAlex
Sze-Yuh Nina Wang

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSociology Compass · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPoliticsSociologyEpistemologySocial scienceEnvironmental ethicsPolitical sciencePhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT With rising levels of political polarisation leading to increasing hostility and legislative stalemates, understanding the psychological mechanisms that underlie and exacerbate this polarisation is more critical than ever. Increasing moral divides may contribute to high levels of polarisation, particularly increases in affective polarisation whereby partisans not only disagree with each other's views, but have increasingly negative emotions like dislike and distrust toward members of the opposing side. As political identities become more enmeshed with moral values and group identity processes, compromise and bipartisanship become increasingly difficult. Research on the moral language used in political contexts suggests that moral rhetoric may have important behavioural consequences, particularly in social media contexts where using moral language may garner greater attention and engagement.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.553
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.219 · 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