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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to compare the belief in a just world for self and others and the moral development in the optimistic and pessimistic students of Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch.Statistical population of the study consists of all postgraduate students of Science and Research University in academic year 2014-2015 that 202 individuals were selected as the sample group by using random cluster sampling method.For collecting the necessary data, Dr. Lotfabadi's Moral Development Questionnaire (2011), Seligman Attributional Style Questionnaire, which was validated by Eslami Shahrbabaki (1990), and Golparvar and Arizi's ( 2006) questionnaire of Belief in Just World for Self and Others were used.To analyze the data, the statistical method of independent t-test was employed to compare two independent groups.Results of the research indicated that the optimistic students are different from the pessimistic students in terms of environmental ethics, personal morality, familial ethics, human ethics and the belief in a just world for self and others and also it was revealed that they had no difference in terms of spiritual and social ethics.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.969 | 0.966 |
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 it