MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411656750 · doi:10.51847/8g5qnioqp8

10.51847/8g5qNIOqP8

2000· article· en· W4411656750 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueTime to knit · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious, Philosophical, and Educational Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPessimismPsychologySocial psychologyJust-world hypothesisOptimismEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.9620.942

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.239 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTime to knitSame topicReligious, Philosophical, and Educational StudiesFrench-language works237,207