Visual moral inference and communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humans can make moral inferences from multiple sources of input. In contrast, automated moral inference in artificial intelligence typically relies on language models with textual input. However, morality is conveyed through modalities beyond language. We present a computational framework that supports moral inference from natural images, demonstrated in two related tasks: 1) inferring human moral judgment toward visual images and 2) analyzing patterns in moral content communicated via images from public news. We find that models based on text alone cannot capture the fine-grained human moral judgment toward visual stimuli, but language-vision fusion models offer better precision in visual moral inference. Furthermore, applications of our framework to news data reveal implicit biases in news categories and geopolitical discussions. Our work creates avenues for automating visual moral inference and discovering patterns of visual moral communication in public media.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".