Datasets:

guicybercode
/

iceland-tech-christian-ethics-prompts

+DATASET CONTENT
+===============
+Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
+SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-4.0
+Copyright (c) 2026 Fictional Icelandic Landscapes, Technology and Christian
+Ethics Prompts dataset contributors
+To the extent that copyright or database rights subsist in the original text
+contained in data/train.jsonl and in the original explanatory dataset-card text,
+and those rights are held by the dataset contributors, that material is licensed
+under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License.
+Official legal code:
+https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
+Suggested attribution:
+"Fictional Icelandic Landscapes, Technology and Christian Ethics Prompts,
+dataset contributors, version 1.0.0 (2026), CC BY 4.0."
+This grant does not cover the Python validation code, which is licensed below.
+It does not grant trademark, privacy, publicity, patent, or other rights that
+the licensors do not hold. The dataset is provided as-is, without warranties.
+VALIDATION CODE
+===============
+MIT License
+SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
+Copyright (c) 2026 Fictional Icelandic Landscapes, Technology and Christian
+Ethics Prompts dataset contributors
+Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of
+the validation scripts and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to
+deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the
+rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
+copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished
+to do so, subject to the following conditions:
+The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
+copies or substantial portions of the Software.
+THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
+IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
+FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
+LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
+OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
+SOFTWARE.

README.md ADDED Viewed

	@@ -0,0 +1,159 @@

+---
+language:
+- pt
+- en
+license: cc-by-4.0
+pretty_name: "Fictional Icelandic Landscapes, Technology and Christian Ethics Prompts"
+task_categories:
+- text-generation
+tags:
+- ethics
+- technology
+- education
+- christian-ethics
+- pluralism
+- ai-generated
+- synthetic
+- bilingual
+size_categories:
+- n<1K
+configs:
+- config_name: default
+  data_files:
+  - split: train
+    path: data/train.jsonl
+---
+# Fictional Icelandic Landscapes, Technology and Christian Ethics Prompts
+This microdataset contains 24 original discussion prompts arranged as 12
+parallel `pt-BR`/English pairs. Each explicitly fictional scenario combines a
+landscape motif inspired by Iceland, a technology-governance dilemma, and
+concepts that may be explored through Christian ethics. The records do not
+describe real Icelandic institutions, policies, communities, or practices, and
+they do not claim that Christians share one position.
+The text is an **AI-generated original draft**. This public experimental draft
+is not a curated release. Automated checks have passed, but independent
+**human review is required before classroom or model use, or before promotion
+to a curated release**, with particular attention to bilingual equivalence,
+theological pluralism, technology ethics, and cultural non-attribution.
+## Intended use
+The prompts are designed for facilitated discussion with adult learners and
+educators. They may support comparative ethics, teacher preparation, prompt
+design, or qualitative evaluation of reasoned dialogue.
+Every record provides:
+- one open ethical question rather than a ground-truth answer;
+- two defensible perspectives for debate;
+- selected Christian-ethics concepts presented as one possible lens;
+- an explicit safeguard welcoming secular, other religious, philosophical,
+  cultural, and lived-experience perspectives;
+- fictionality, AI-generation, review, and license metadata.
+The `a`/`b` order is an arbitrary serialization choice, not a ranking or an
+indication that one perspective is preferred.
+This dataset is not doctrinal instruction, pastoral or mental-health advice,
+evidence about Iceland or Christianity, a faith-assessment tool, or a basis for
+automated decisions about people. Facilitators should not require religious
+assent or frame either perspective as the approved answer.
+## Data structure
+The single `train` split is stored in `data/train.jsonl`. It is named `train`
+for Hugging Face compatibility, not because the draft is currently approved
+for model training.
+| Field | Meaning |
+| --- | --- |
+| `id`, `pair_id`, `language`, `translation_of` | Record identity and direct `pt-BR` → English lineage |
+| `scenario_title`, `setting`, `discussion_question` | Localized fictional prompt |
+| `technology_domain`, `landscape_motif`, `topic_tags` | Stable pair-level descriptors |
+| `perspectives` | Exactly two debate positions, each with two follow-up questions |
+| `christian_ethics_concepts` | Non-exhaustive concepts available to the discussion |
+| `pluralism` | Mandatory non-coercion and worldview-inclusion safeguards |
+| `fictionality` | Explicit disclaimer of real-practice claims |
+| `creation`, `status` | AI disclosure and required human-review state |
+| `license`, `version`, `audience`, `intended_use` | Release and use metadata |
+The stable concept tags are editorial labels, not claims about universal or
+exclusive Christian interpretations. The two language versions preserve
+stable metadata while localizing all teaching text.
+## Validation
+The validator uses only the Python standard library. From this directory, run:
+```bash
+python3 validate_iceland.py
+python3 -m unittest -v test_iceland_dataset.py
+```
+Expected results are `valid: 24 records in 12 pt-BR/en pairs` and a passing
+six-test suite. The checks cover record shape, pair completeness, direct
+translation lineage, fictionality, pluralism, AI disclosure, review state,
+prohibited universalizing/proselytizing phrases, and release-file metadata.
+To load the dataset from Hugging Face after installing `datasets`:
+```python
+from datasets import load_dataset
+dataset = load_dataset(
+    "guicybercode/iceland-tech-christian-ethics-prompts",
+    split="train",
+)
+```
+## Creation and provenance
+The scenarios and translations were generated specifically for this
+microdataset on 2026-08-27. No external passages, case studies, doctrinal
+statements, or descriptions of real communities were copied or adapted.
+Landscape elements are generic fictional motifs; place names and institutions
+are deliberately omitted.
+No participant, learner, congregation, or community data is included. No
+record should be used to infer how any Icelandic person, Christian community,
+church, denomination, or other worldview group actually reasons or behaves.
+## Limitations and review requirements
+- AI-generated wording can contain subtle cultural, theological, or translation
+  problems that structural validation cannot detect.
+- Christian ethics is internally diverse; the selected concepts are prompts,
+  not a canon or consensus statement.
+- Two perspectives cannot exhaust the options in a real decision.
+- Fictional landscape imagery may still evoke stereotypes and needs cultural
+  review.
+- The recurring ice, snow, lava, volcanic, and storm motifs are a narrow
+  creative selection; they do not represent the full geography or culture of
+  Iceland.
+- The English records are direct translations of the `pt-BR` editorial roots
+  and have not received independent bilingual review.
+- The data contains no tested learning outcomes and no model-performance
+  benchmark.
+This public upload must remain labelled as an experimental draft. Before
+classroom/model use or promotion to a curated release, reviewers should confirm
+the 24 records for language, cultural framing, balanced argumentation,
+religious pluralism, safety, and rights. Review decisions should be documented
+rather than inferred from the automated validator.
+## License and attribution
+The original text in `data/train.jsonl` and this dataset card is offered under
+Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (`CC BY 4.0`). The Python
+validation scripts are offered under the MIT License. Both grants and their
+exact scope are stated in [`LICENSE`](LICENSE). Suggested attribution:
+> Fictional Icelandic Landscapes, Technology and Christian Ethics Prompts,
+> dataset contributors, version 1.0.0 (2026), CC BY 4.0.
+The official license and Hugging Face card conventions are available from
+[Creative Commons](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode) and
+[Hugging Face Dataset Cards](https://huggingface.co/docs/hub/datasets-cards).

data/train.jsonl ADDED Viewed

	@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@

+{"id":"ice-tech-ethics-01-pt-br","pair_id":"ice-tech-ethics-01","language":"pt-BR","translation_of":null,"version":"1.0.0","status":"ai-generated-draft-human-review-required","license":"CC-BY-4.0","audience":["adult-learners","educators"],"intended_use":"facilitated-ethical-discussion","technology_domain":"emergency-energy-allocation","landscape_motif":"geothermal-valley","topic_tags":["ai-governance","energy","emergency-response","privacy"],"scenario_title":"A microrrede no vale geotérmico","setting":"Em um vale geotérmico inteiramente inventado, uma cooperativa opera uma microrrede experimental. Durante uma tempestade ficcional de dez dias, o sistema de IA prevê energia insuficiente para todas as cargas e pede dados domésticos detalhados para priorizar uma clínica e um centro de aquecimento comunitário.","discussion_question":"A cooperativa deveria ativar a alocação emergencial proposta pela IA, inclusive para residências que recusaram compartilhar dados detalhados?","perspectives":[{"id":"a","title":"Prioridade temporária ao bem comum","argument":"Uma pessoa que recorra à mordomia, ao amor ao próximo e ao bem comum pode defender uma regra temporária, transparente e estritamente necessária que preserve serviços vitais. A decisão teria prazo curto, auditoria pública e um mínimo de dados, com revisão humana de exceções.","questions":["Quais cargas deveriam ser consideradas vitais e quem poderia defini-las?","Que limites de duração, coleta de dados e mecanismos de contestação tornariam a medida proporcional?"]},{"id":"b","title":"Consentimento e alternativas não coercivas","argument":"Outra pessoa pode sustentar que dignidade e confiança são prejudicadas quando a recusa de dados reduz o acesso à energia. Antes de impor o plano, a cooperativa poderia oferecer cotas iguais, adesão com dados agregados e apoio manual às pessoas mais expostas ao frio.","questions":["Como evitar que a privacidade se torne um privilégio de quem pode pagar?","Qual alternativa protegeria a clínica sem punir quem recusou monitoramento?"]}],"christian_ethics_concepts":["stewardship","love-of-neighbor","common-good","human-dignity"],"pluralism":{"required":true,"commitments":["no-required-assent","multiple-worldviews-welcome","no-group-consensus-claim"],"safeguard":"Trate os conceitos cristãos citados como uma lente possível, nunca como resposta obrigatória ou consenso entre cristãos. Convide também argumentos seculares, de outras religiões, filosofias, culturas e experiências vividas, sem exigir adesão religiosa."},"fictionality":{"is_fictional":true,"claims_real_icelandic_or_christian_practices":false,"notice":"Cenário explicitamente ficcional inspirado por uma paisagem islandesa genérica. Não descreve instituições, políticas, comunidades, práticas islandesas ou práticas cristãs reais."},"creation":{"method":"ai-generated-original-draft","human_review_status":"required-before-curated-release-or-use","review_focus":["bilingual-equivalence","theological-pluralism","technology-ethics","cultural-non-attribution"]}}
+{"id":"ice-tech-ethics-01-en","pair_id":"ice-tech-ethics-01","language":"en","translation_of":"ice-tech-ethics-01-pt-br","version":"1.0.0","status":"ai-generated-draft-human-review-required","license":"CC-BY-4.0","audience":["adult-learners","educators"],"intended_use":"facilitated-ethical-discussion","technology_domain":"emergency-energy-allocation","landscape_motif":"geothermal-valley","topic_tags":["ai-governance","energy","emergency-response","privacy"],"scenario_title":"The Microgrid in the Geothermal Valley","setting":"In a wholly invented geothermal valley, a cooperative operates an experimental microgrid. During a fictional ten-day storm, its AI predicts too little energy for every load and requests detailed household data to prioritize a clinic and a community warming center.","discussion_question":"Should the cooperative activate the AI's emergency allocation plan, including for households that refused to share detailed data?","perspectives":[{"id":"a","title":"Temporary Priority for the Common Good","argument":"A participant drawing on stewardship, love of neighbor, and the common good could support a temporary, transparent, and strictly necessary rule that preserves vital services. The decision would expire quickly, receive public audit, minimize data, and give exceptions human review.","questions":["Which loads should count as vital, and who should be allowed to define them?","What limits on duration, data, and appeal would make the measure proportionate?"]},{"id":"b","title":"Consent and Non-Coercive Alternatives","argument":"Another participant could argue that dignity and trust suffer when refusing data reduces access to energy. Before imposing the plan, the cooperative could offer equal quotas, an aggregated-data option, and manual support for people most exposed to the cold.","questions":["How can the cooperative keep privacy from becoming a privilege only some can afford?","Which alternative would protect the clinic without penalizing those who refused monitoring?"]}],"christian_ethics_concepts":["stewardship","love-of-neighbor","common-good","human-dignity"],"pluralism":{"required":true,"commitments":["no-required-assent","multiple-worldviews-welcome","no-group-consensus-claim"],"safeguard":"Treat the named Christian concepts as one possible lens, never as a required answer or a consensus among Christians. Also invite secular, other religious, philosophical, cultural, and lived-experience arguments without requiring religious assent."},"fictionality":{"is_fictional":true,"claims_real_icelandic_or_christian_practices":false,"notice":"Explicitly fictional scenario inspired by a generic Icelandic landscape. It does not describe real Icelandic or Christian institutions, policies, communities, or practices."},"creation":{"method":"ai-generated-original-draft","human_review_status":"required-before-curated-release-or-use","review_focus":["bilingual-equivalence","theological-pluralism","technology-ethics","cultural-non-attribution"]}}
+{"id":"ice-tech-ethics-02-pt-br","pair_id":"ice-tech-ethics-02","language":"pt-BR","translation_of":null,"version":"1.0.0","status":"ai-generated-draft-human-review-required","license":"CC-BY-4.0","audience":["adult-learners","educators"],"intended_use":"facilitated-ethical-discussion","technology_domain":"public-safety-surveillance","landscape_motif":"glacier-lagoon","topic_tags":["drones","public-safety","privacy","surveillance"],"scenario_title":"Drones sobre a lagoa glacial","setting":"Em uma lagoa glacial ficcional, uma equipe voluntária testa drones com câmeras térmicas para encontrar pessoas perdidas. O sistema também registra visitantes que não pediram ajuda e pretende guardar todas as imagens por cinco anos para aperfeiçoar seus modelos.","discussion_question":"A equipe deveria manter a vigilância contínua e o arquivo de cinco anos se isso puder melhorar futuros resgates?","perspectives":[{"id":"a","title":"Cuidado rápido com limites verificáveis","argument":"Uma perspectiva centrada no amor ao próximo e no cuidado de pessoas vulneráveis pode aceitar sensores durante períodos de risco, desde que a finalidade seja resgate, o acesso seja restrito e imagens sem incidente sejam apagadas rapidamente. A capacidade de salvar vidas não exige retenção ilimitada.","questions":["Que evidência demonstraria que a vigilância realmente melhora os resgates?","Quanto tempo seria necessário para investigar um incidente sem criar um arquivo permanente?"]},{"id":"b","title":"Dignidade, privacidade e prevenção de desvio de finalidade","argument":"Outra perspectiva pode argumentar que observar todas as pessoas transforma presença em suspeita e cria dados reutilizáveis para finalidades futuras. Ela priorizaria sinalizadores de emergência, rotas informadas e drones acionados por evento, mesmo que a resposta às vezes seja mais lenta.","questions":["Quem poderia autorizar um novo uso das imagens e representar as pessoas filmadas?","Quais opções de resgate funcionariam sem rastrear visitantes que não estão em perigo?"]}],"christian_ethics_concepts":["love-of-neighbor","care-for-vulnerable","human-dignity","humility"],"pluralism":{"required":true,"commitments":["no-required-assent","multiple-worldviews-welcome","no-group-consensus-claim"],"safeguard":"Trate os conceitos cristãos citados como uma lente possível, nunca como resposta obrigatória ou consenso entre cristãos. Convide também argumentos seculares, de outras religiões, filosofias, culturas e experiências vividas, sem exigir adesão religiosa."},"fictionality":{"is_fictional":true,"claims_real_icelandic_or_christian_practices":false,"notice":"Cenário explicitamente ficcional inspirado por uma paisagem islandesa genérica. Não descreve instituições, políticas, comunidades, práticas islandesas ou práticas cristãs reais."},"creation":{"method":"ai-generated-original-draft","human_review_status":"required-before-curated-release-or-use","review_focus":["bilingual-equivalence","theological-pluralism","technology-ethics","cultural-non-attribution"]}}
+{"id":"ice-tech-ethics-02-en","pair_id":"ice-tech-ethics-02","language":"en","translation_of":"ice-tech-ethics-02-pt-br","version":"1.0.0","status":"ai-generated-draft-human-review-required","license":"CC-BY-4.0","audience":["adult-learners","educators"],"intended_use":"facilitated-ethical-discussion","technology_domain":"public-safety-surveillance","landscape_motif":"glacier-lagoon","topic_tags":["drones","public-safety","privacy","surveillance"],"scenario_title":"Drones Above the Glacier Lagoon","setting":"At a fictional glacier lagoon, a volunteer team tests thermal-camera drones to find people who are lost. The system also records visitors who did not request help and proposes keeping every image for five years to improve its models.","discussion_question":"Should the team maintain continuous surveillance and a five-year archive if doing so might improve future rescues?","perspectives":[{"id":"a","title":"Rapid Care with Verifiable Limits","argument":"A perspective centered on love of neighbor and care for vulnerable people could accept sensing during periods of danger if its purpose remains rescue, access is restricted, and images without incidents are erased quickly. The ability to save lives does not require unlimited retention.","questions":["What evidence would show that surveillance actually improves rescue outcomes?","How long is necessary to investigate an incident without building a permanent archive?"]},{"id":"b","title":"Dignity, Privacy, and Purpose-Limitation","argument":"Another perspective could argue that observing everyone turns presence into suspicion and creates data reusable for future purposes. It would prioritize emergency beacons, informed routes, and event-triggered drones even if response is occasionally slower.","questions":["Who could authorize a new use of the images and represent the people recorded?","Which rescue options would work without tracking visitors who are not in danger?"]}],"christian_ethics_concepts":["love-of-neighbor","care-for-vulnerable","human-dignity","humility"],"pluralism":{"required":true,"commitments":["no-required-assent","multiple-worldviews-welcome","no-group-consensus-claim"],"safeguard":"Treat the named Christian concepts as one possible lens, never as a required answer or a consensus among Christians. Also invite secular, other religious, philosophical, cultural, and lived-experience arguments without requiring religious assent."},"fictionality":{"is_fictional":true,"claims_real_icelandic_or_christian_practices":false,"notice":"Explicitly fictional scenario inspired by a generic Icelandic landscape. It does not describe real Icelandic or Christian institutions, policies, communities, or practices."},"creation":{"method":"ai-generated-original-draft","human_review_status":"required-before-curated-release-or-use","review_focus":["bilingual-equivalence","theological-pluralism","technology-ethics","cultural-non-attribution"]}}
+{"id":"ice-tech-ethics-03-pt-br","pair_id":"ice-tech-ethics-03","language":"pt-BR","translation_of":null,"version":"1.0.0","status":"ai-generated-draft-human-review-required","license":"CC-BY-4.0","audience":["adult-learners","educators"],"intended_use":"facilitated-ethical-discussion","technology_domain":"algorithmic-resource-governance","landscape_motif":"basalt-bay","topic_tags":["algorithmic-governance","livelihoods","natural-resources","uncertainty"],"scenario_title":"A previsão da baía de basalto","setting":"Em uma baía de basalto inventada, um modelo prevê que a retirada de uma espécie marinha ficcional deve cair pela metade durante seis meses. A margem de erro é ampla, e pequenas equipes de trabalho afirmam que uma redução súbita ameaça sua renda e a oferta local de alimentos.","discussion_question":"O conselho comunitário deveria adotar imediatamente a redução sugerida pelo modelo ou esperar por mais evidências?","perspectives":[{"id":"a","title":"Precaução como responsabilidade de longo prazo","argument":"Uma pessoa pode relacionar mordomia, cuidado da criação e justiça entre gerações a uma redução provisória. Ela defenderia apoio de renda, publicação das incertezas e novos dados antes da revisão, tratando a previsão como alerta prudencial e não como autoridade infalível.","questions":["Que apoio tornaria o custo da precaução mais justo para as equipes afetadas?","Qual prazo de revisão impediria que uma regra temporária se tornasse permanente sem prova?"]},{"id":"b","title":"Humildade epistêmica e decisão compartilhada","argument":"Outra pessoa pode enfatizar humildade diante de um modelo incerto e justiça procedimental para quem assume o custo. Ela proporia testes menores, conhecimento observacional voluntário e decisão conjunta, aceitando algum risco ambiental para evitar uma ruptura desproporcional.","questions":["Como incorporar experiência local sem tratá-la como prova automática?","Que nível de incerteza justificaria uma intervenção mais forte apesar dos custos?"]}],"christian_ethics_concepts":["stewardship","creation-care","justice","humility"],"pluralism":{"required":true,"commitments":["no-required-assent","multiple-worldviews-welcome","no-group-consensus-claim"],"safeguard":"Trate os conceitos cristãos citados como uma lente possível, nunca como resposta obrigatória ou consenso entre cristãos. Convide também argumentos seculares, de outras religiões, filosofias, culturas e experiências vividas, sem exigir adesão religiosa."},"fictionality":{"is_fictional":true,"claims_real_icelandic_or_christian_practices":false,"notice":"Cenário explicitamente ficcional inspirado por uma paisagem islandesa genérica. Não descreve instituições, políticas, comunidades, práticas islandesas ou práticas cristãs reais."},"creation":{"method":"ai-generated-original-draft","human_review_status":"required-before-curated-release-or-use","review_focus":["bilingual-equivalence","theological-pluralism","technology-ethics","cultural-non-attribution"]}}
+{"id":"ice-tech-ethics-03-en","pair_id":"ice-tech-ethics-03","language":"en","translation_of":"ice-tech-ethics-03-pt-br","version":"1.0.0","status":"ai-generated-draft-human-review-required","license":"CC-BY-4.0","audience":["adult-learners","educators"],"intended_use":"facilitated-ethical-discussion","technology_domain":"algorithmic-resource-governance","landscape_motif":"basalt-bay","topic_tags":["algorithmic-governance","livelihoods","natural-resources","uncertainty"],"scenario_title":"The Basalt Bay Forecast","setting":"In an invented basalt bay, a model predicts that harvesting a fictional marine species should be cut in half for six months. Its margin of error is wide, and small work crews say a sudden reduction threatens their income and the local food supply.","discussion_question":"Should the community council immediately adopt the model's recommended reduction or wait for more evidence?","perspectives":[{"id":"a","title":"Precaution as Long-Term Responsibility","argument":"A participant could connect stewardship, care for creation, and intergenerational justice with a provisional reduction. They would support income assistance, published uncertainty, and new data before review, treating the forecast as a prudent warning rather than infallible authority.","questions":["What support would make the cost of precaution fairer for affected crews?","Which review deadline would keep a temporary rule from becoming permanent without evidence?"]},{"id":"b","title":"Epistemic Humility and Shared Decisions","argument":"Another participant could emphasize humility toward an uncertain model and procedural justice for those bearing the cost. They would propose smaller trials, voluntary observational knowledge, and joint decisions, accepting some environmental risk to avoid disproportionate disruption.","questions":["How can local experience be included without treating it as automatic proof?","What degree of uncertainty would still justify stronger intervention despite the costs?"]}],"christian_ethics_concepts":["stewardship","creation-care","justice","humility"],"pluralism":{"required":true,"commitments":["no-required-assent","multiple-worldviews-welcome","no-group-consensus-claim"],"safeguard":"Treat the named Christian concepts as one possible lens, never as a required answer or a consensus among Christians. Also invite secular, other religious, philosophical, cultural, and lived-experience arguments without requiring religious assent."},"fictionality":{"is_fictional":true,"claims_real_icelandic_or_christian_practices":false,"notice":"Explicitly fictional scenario inspired by a generic Icelandic landscape. It does not describe real Icelandic or Christian institutions, policies, communities, or practices."},"creation":{"method":"ai-generated-original-draft","human_review_status":"required-before-curated-release-or-use","review_focus":["bilingual-equivalence","theological-pluralism","technology-ethics","cultural-non-attribution"]}}
+{"id":"ice-tech-ethics-04-pt-br","pair_id":"ice-tech-ethics-04","language":"pt-BR","translation_of":null,"version":"1.0.0","status":"ai-generated-draft-human-review-required","license":"CC-BY-4.0","audience":["adult-learners","educators"],"intended_use":"facilitated-ethical-discussion","technology_domain":"sustainable-computing","landscape_motif":"winter-greenhouse","topic_tags":["data-centers","energy-justice","sustainability","transparency"],"scenario_title":"Calor digital para a estufa de inverno","setting":"Em uma planície nevada ficcional, uma empresa propõe um centro de computação cujo calor residual aqueceria uma estufa comunitária. Sua apresentação destaca alimentos e empregos, mas não inclui a demanda total de energia, o consumo de água nem contratos que garantam o calor à estufa.","discussion_question":"A comunidade deveria aprovar o centro de computação antes de receber uma contabilidade completa de impactos e garantias de benefício?","perspectives":[{"id":"a","title":"Experimentar com compromissos públicos","argument":"Uma leitura de cuidado da criação e bem comum pode apoiar um projeto piloto menor se os benefícios forem contratualmente protegidos, os dados ambientais forem abertos e houver metas de encerramento. Adiar toda experiência também pode perder oportunidades de reduzir desperdício.","questions":["Quais benefícios deveriam ser garantidos em vez de apenas prometidos?","Que indicadores permitiriam encerrar o piloto se o custo superar o benefício?"]},{"id":"b","title":"Verdade antes da licença social","argument":"Outra leitura pode priorizar veracidade e justiça energética, recusando aprovação enquanto custos essenciais permanecerem ocultos. O uso do calor não compensa automaticamente nova demanda, e a comunidade precisa comparar o projeto com alternativas menos intensivas antes de consentir.","questions":["Que informações faltantes mudariam materialmente a decisão?","Como distinguir reaproveitamento genuíno de uma narrativa de sustentabilidade enganosa?"]}],"christian_ethics_concepts":["creation-care","common-good","truthfulness","justice"],"pluralism":{"required":true,"commitments":["no-required-assent","multiple-worldviews-welcome","no-group-consensus-claim"],"safeguard":"Trate os conceitos cristãos citados como uma lente possível, nunca como resposta obrigatória ou consenso entre cristãos. Convide também argumentos seculares, de outras religiões, filosofias, culturas e experiências vividas, sem exigir adesão religiosa."},"fictionality":{"is_fictional":true,"claims_real_icelandic_or_christian_practices":false,"notice":"Cenário explicitamente ficcional inspirado por uma paisagem islandesa genérica. Não descreve instituições, políticas, comunidades, práticas islandesas ou práticas cristãs reais."},"creation":{"method":"ai-generated-original-draft","human_review_status":"required-before-curated-release-or-use","review_focus":["bilingual-equivalence","theological-pluralism","technology-ethics","cultural-non-attribution"]}}
+{"id":"ice-tech-ethics-04-en","pair_id":"ice-tech-ethics-04","language":"en","translation_of":"ice-tech-ethics-04-pt-br","version":"1.0.0","status":"ai-generated-draft-human-review-required","license":"CC-BY-4.0","audience":["adult-learners","educators"],"intended_use":"facilitated-ethical-discussion","technology_domain":"sustainable-computing","landscape_motif":"winter-greenhouse","topic_tags":["data-centers","energy-justice","sustainability","transparency"],"scenario_title":"Digital Heat for the Winter Greenhouse","setting":"On a fictional snowy plain, a company proposes a computing center whose waste heat would warm a community greenhouse. Its presentation highlights food and jobs but omits total energy demand, water use, and contracts guaranteeing heat to the greenhouse.","discussion_question":"Should the community approve the computing center before receiving full impact accounting and enforceable benefit guarantees?","perspectives":[{"id":"a","title":"Experiment with Public Commitments","argument":"A creation-care and common-good lens could support a smaller pilot if benefits are protected by contract, environmental data is open, and shutdown targets exist. Postponing every experiment can also forfeit opportunities to reduce waste.","questions":["Which benefits should be guaranteed rather than merely promised?","What indicators would allow the pilot to close if costs outweigh benefits?"]},{"id":"b","title":"Truth Before Social License","argument":"Another lens could prioritize truthfulness and energy justice, withholding approval while essential costs remain hidden. Reusing heat does not automatically offset new demand, and the community needs to compare less intensive alternatives before consenting.","questions":["Which missing facts would materially change the decision?","How can genuine reuse be distinguished from a misleading sustainability narrative?"]}],"christian_ethics_concepts":["creation-care","common-good","truthfulness","justice"],"pluralism":{"required":true,"commitments":["no-required-assent","multiple-worldviews-welcome","no-group-consensus-claim"],"safeguard":"Treat the named Christian concepts as one possible lens, never as a required answer or a consensus among Christians. Also invite secular, other religious, philosophical, cultural, and lived-experience arguments without requiring religious assent."},"fictionality":{"is_fictional":true,"claims_real_icelandic_or_christian_practices":false,"notice":"Explicitly fictional scenario inspired by a generic Icelandic landscape. It does not describe real Icelandic or Christian institutions, policies, communities, or practices."},"creation":{"method":"ai-generated-original-draft","human_review_status":"required-before-curated-release-or-use","review_focus":["bilingual-equivalence","theological-pluralism","technology-ethics","cultural-non-attribution"]}}
+{"id":"ice-tech-ethics-05-pt-br","pair_id":"ice-tech-ethics-05","language":"pt-BR","translation_of":null,"version":"1.0.0","status":"ai-generated-draft-human-review-required","license":"CC-BY-4.0","audience":["adult-learners","educators"],"intended_use":"facilitated-ethical-discussion","technology_domain":"autonomous-access-control","landscape_motif":"mossy-lava-field","topic_tags":["accessibility","autonomous-systems","environment","public-space"],"scenario_title":"Robôs de rota no campo de lava","setting":"Em um campo de lava coberto por musgo, totalmente ficcional, pequenos robôs redirecionam visitantes para proteger áreas sensíveis. O algoritmo, porém, fecha rotas largas usadas por cadeiras de rodas e oferece apenas um caminho íngreme, sem pessoa disponível para rever a decisão.","discussion_question":"O sistema deveria continuar fechando rotas automaticamente enquanto protege a paisagem, mesmo que algumas pessoas percam acesso equivalente?","perspectives":[{"id":"a","title":"Proteção imediata com desenho adaptativo","argument":"Uma pessoa pode invocar mordomia e cuidado da criação para manter restrições temporárias, mas exigir rotas acessíveis planejadas com usuários, horários alternativos e revisão rápida. Proteger um lugar compartilhado não precisa tornar a exclusão um efeito invisível.","questions":["Que nível de impacto justificaria fechar uma rota antes de existir alternativa acessível?","Como pessoas com diferentes mobilidades participariam do desenho das novas rotas?"]},{"id":"b","title":"Dignidade e acesso antes da automação","argument":"Outra pessoa pode argumentar que um sistema sem canal de revisão humana trata acessibilidade como exceção descartável. Ela suspenderia os fechamentos automáticos até haver decisão humana, sinalização clara e acomodação equivalente, mesmo com algum risco ambiental adicional.","questions":["Quando uma restrição ambiental se torna discriminação indireta?","Quem deve responder quando o algoritmo impede acesso e não existe canal de recurso?"]}],"christian_ethics_concepts":["stewardship","creation-care","human-dignity","justice"],"pluralism":{"required":true,"commitments":["no-required-assent","multiple-worldviews-welcome","no-group-consensus-claim"],"safeguard":"Trate os conceitos cristãos citados como uma lente possível, nunca como resposta obrigatória ou consenso entre cristãos. Convide também argumentos seculares, de outras religiões, filosofias, culturas e experiências vividas, sem exigir adesão religiosa."},"fictionality":{"is_fictional":true,"claims_real_icelandic_or_christian_practices":false,"notice":"Cenário explicitamente ficcional inspirado por uma paisagem islandesa genérica. Não descreve instituições, políticas, comunidades, práticas islandesas ou práticas cristãs reais."},"creation":{"method":"ai-generated-original-draft","human_review_status":"required-before-curated-release-or-use","review_focus":["bilingual-equivalence","theological-pluralism","technology-ethics","cultural-non-attribution"]}}
+{"id":"ice-tech-ethics-05-en","pair_id":"ice-tech-ethics-05","language":"en","translation_of":"ice-tech-ethics-05-pt-br","version":"1.0.0","status":"ai-generated-draft-human-review-required","license":"CC-BY-4.0","audience":["adult-learners","educators"],"intended_use":"facilitated-ethical-discussion","technology_domain":"autonomous-access-control","landscape_motif":"mossy-lava-field","topic_tags":["accessibility","autonomous-systems","environment","public-space"],"scenario_title":"Route Robots in the Lava Field","setting":"In a wholly fictional moss-covered lava field, small robots redirect visitors to protect sensitive areas. The algorithm, however, closes wide routes used by wheelchairs and offers only a steep path, with no person available to review its decision.","discussion_question":"Should the system keep closing routes automatically to protect the landscape even when some people lose equivalent access?","perspectives":[{"id":"a","title":"Immediate Protection with Adaptive Design","argument":"A participant could invoke stewardship and care for creation to retain temporary restrictions while requiring accessible routes designed with users, alternate schedules, and rapid review. Protecting a shared place need not make exclusion an invisible side effect.","questions":["What level of impact would justify closing a route before an accessible alternative exists?","How would people with different mobility needs participate in designing new routes?"]},{"id":"b","title":"Dignity and Access Before Automation","argument":"Another participant could argue that a system without a human-review channel treats accessibility as a disposable exception. They would suspend automatic closures until human decisions, clear signs, and equivalent accommodation exist, even with some additional environmental risk.","questions":["When does an environmental restriction become indirect discrimination?","Who is accountable when the algorithm blocks access and offers no appeal channel?"]}],"christian_ethics_concepts":["stewardship","creation-care","human-dignity","justice"],"pluralism":{"required":true,"commitments":["no-required-assent","multiple-worldviews-welcome","no-group-consensus-claim"],"safeguard":"Treat the named Christian concepts as one possible lens, never as a required answer or a consensus among Christians. Also invite secular, other religious, philosophical, cultural, and lived-experience arguments without requiring religious assent."},"fictionality":{"is_fictional":true,"claims_real_icelandic_or_christian_practices":false,"notice":"Explicitly fictional scenario inspired by a generic Icelandic landscape. It does not describe real Icelandic or Christian institutions, policies, communities, or practices."},"creation":{"method":"ai-generated-original-draft","human_review_status":"required-before-curated-release-or-use","review_focus":["bilingual-equivalence","theological-pluralism","technology-ethics","cultural-non-attribution"]}}
+{"id":"ice-tech-ethics-06-pt-br","pair_id":"ice-tech-ethics-06","language":"pt-BR","translation_of":null,"version":"1.0.0","status":"ai-generated-draft-human-review-required","license":"CC-BY-4.0","audience":["adult-learners","educators"],"intended_use":"facilitated-ethical-discussion","technology_domain":"emotion-recognition","landscape_motif":"black-sand-coast","topic_tags":["education","emotion-ai","privacy","adult-learner-safety"],"scenario_title":"O alerta emocional na costa de areia negra","setting":"Em um centro educacional ficcional junto a uma costa de areia negra, câmeras analisam rosto e voz para sinalizar possível sofrimento de pessoas adultas que estudam no centro. O fornecedor não explica a taxa de erro entre idiomas e afirma que os alertas devem permanecer secretos para evitar mudanças de comportamento.","discussion_question":"O centro deveria usar os alertas emocionais para iniciar conversas de apoio antes de conhecer sua precisão e obter consentimento informado?","perspectives":[{"id":"a","title":"Cuidado preventivo com participação voluntária","argument":"Uma pessoa focada no cuidado de vulneráveis pode aceitar um piloto de adesão voluntária, sem diagnóstico, no qual cada alerta apenas convida a uma conversa confidencial conduzida por pessoa treinada. Dados seriam apagados, erros medidos e nenhuma consequência acadêmica seria permitida.","questions":["Como um convite de apoio pode evitar parecer acusação ou diagnóstico?","Quais grupos deveriam testar primeiro a precisão e os efeitos do sistema?"]},{"id":"b","title":"Dignidade contra inferência oculta","argument":"Outra pessoa pode sustentar que emoções não são fatos observáveis pela câmera e que vigilância secreta prejudica confiança e autonomia. Ela investiria em apoio acessível, canais anônimos e formação humana, rejeitando inferências biométricas até existir evidência independente robusta.","questions":["Que dano pode ocorrer mesmo quando um alerta falso não gera punição formal?","Quais formas de cuidado não exigem deduzir estados internos a partir do corpo?"]}],"christian_ethics_concepts":["care-for-vulnerable","human-dignity","truthfulness","humility"],"pluralism":{"required":true,"commitments":["no-required-assent","multiple-worldviews-welcome","no-group-consensus-claim"],"safeguard":"Trate os conceitos cristãos citados como uma lente possível, nunca como resposta obrigatória ou consenso entre cristãos. Convide também argumentos seculares, de outras religiões, filosofias, culturas e experiências vividas, sem exigir adesão religiosa."},"fictionality":{"is_fictional":true,"claims_real_icelandic_or_christian_practices":false,"notice":"Cenário explicitamente ficcional inspirado por uma paisagem islandesa genérica. Não descreve instituições, políticas, comunidades, práticas islandesas ou práticas cristãs reais."},"creation":{"method":"ai-generated-original-draft","human_review_status":"required-before-curated-release-or-use","review_focus":["bilingual-equivalence","theological-pluralism","technology-ethics","cultural-non-attribution"]}}
+{"id":"ice-tech-ethics-06-en","pair_id":"ice-tech-ethics-06","language":"en","translation_of":"ice-tech-ethics-06-pt-br","version":"1.0.0","status":"ai-generated-draft-human-review-required","license":"CC-BY-4.0","audience":["adult-learners","educators"],"intended_use":"facilitated-ethical-discussion","technology_domain":"emotion-recognition","landscape_motif":"black-sand-coast","topic_tags":["education","emotion-ai","privacy","adult-learner-safety"],"scenario_title":"The Emotion Alert on the Black-Sand Coast","setting":"At a fictional learning center beside a black-sand coast, cameras analyze faces and voices to flag possible distress among adult learners. The vendor does not explain error rates across languages and says alerts should remain secret to avoid changed behavior.","discussion_question":"Should the center use emotion alerts to begin supportive conversations before knowing their accuracy and obtaining informed consent?","perspectives":[{"id":"a","title":"Preventive Care with Voluntary Participation","argument":"A participant focused on care for vulnerable people could accept an opt-in, non-diagnostic pilot in which each alert only invites a confidential conversation led by a trained person. Data would be deleted, errors measured, and academic consequences prohibited.","questions":["How can an offer of support avoid feeling like an accusation or diagnosis?","Which groups should first test the system's accuracy and effects?"]},{"id":"b","title":"Dignity Against Hidden Inference","argument":"Another participant could argue that emotions are not camera-observable facts and that secret surveillance damages trust and autonomy. They would fund accessible support, anonymous channels, and human training while rejecting biometric inference until robust independent evidence exists.","questions":["What harm can occur even when a false alert creates no formal penalty?","Which forms of care do not require inferring inner states from the body?"]}],"christian_ethics_concepts":["care-for-vulnerable","human-dignity","truthfulness","humility"],"pluralism":{"required":true,"commitments":["no-required-assent","multiple-worldviews-welcome","no-group-consensus-claim"],"safeguard":"Treat the named Christian concepts as one possible lens, never as a required answer or a consensus among Christians. Also invite secular, other religious, philosophical, cultural, and lived-experience arguments without requiring religious assent."},"fictionality":{"is_fictional":true,"claims_real_icelandic_or_christian_practices":false,"notice":"Explicitly fictional scenario inspired by a generic Icelandic landscape. It does not describe real Icelandic or Christian institutions, policies, communities, or practices."},"creation":{"method":"ai-generated-original-draft","human_review_status":"required-before-curated-release-or-use","review_focus":["bilingual-equivalence","theological-pluralism","technology-ethics","cultural-non-attribution"]}}
+{"id":"ice-tech-ethics-07-pt-br","pair_id":"ice-tech-ethics-07","language":"pt-BR","translation_of":null,"version":"1.0.0","status":"ai-generated-draft-human-review-required","license":"CC-BY-4.0","audience":["adult-learners","educators"],"intended_use":"facilitated-ethical-discussion","technology_domain":"healthcare-ai","landscape_motif":"stormy-fjord","topic_tags":["accountability","healthcare","triage","algorithmic-bias"],"scenario_title":"Triagem durante a tempestade no fiorde","setting":"Em uma clínica ficcional à margem de um fiorde, uma tempestade interrompe o transporte por dois dias. Um sistema de triagem recomenda prioridade com base em dados históricos, mas sua documentação não mostra desempenho para pessoas com deficiência ou sintomas descritos de forma incomum.","discussion_question":"A clínica deveria seguir as prioridades do sistema para ganhar velocidade ou exigir avaliação humana de cada recomendação durante a emergência?","perspectives":[{"id":"a","title":"Consistência como apoio, não comando","argument":"Uma perspectiva de justiça e cuidado de vulneráveis pode usar a ferramenta para organizar informações e reduzir atrasos, desde que uma pessoa responsável confirme cada decisão, registre divergências e reserve capacidade para casos não reconhecidos pelo padrão histórico.","questions":["Que sinais deveriam obrigar a equipe a ignorar a recomendação automática?","Como medir se a ferramenta reduz ou amplia desigualdades durante a emergência?"]},{"id":"b","title":"Responsabilidade clínica sem atalho algorítmico","argument":"Outra perspectiva pode afirmar que velocidade não compensa riscos desconhecidos para grupos pouco representados. Ela suspenderia a priorização automática, usando apenas listas e cálculos não decisórios até haver validação independente, ainda que a fila avance mais devagar.","questions":["Quem assumiria responsabilidade por um dano causado por seguir a ordem do sistema?","Que uso limitado preservaria utilidade sem delegar a decisão clínica?"]}],"christian_ethics_concepts":["care-for-vulnerable","human-dignity","justice","humility"],"pluralism":{"required":true,"commitments":["no-required-assent","multiple-worldviews-welcome","no-group-consensus-claim"],"safeguard":"Trate os conceitos cristãos citados como uma lente possível, nunca como resposta obrigatória ou consenso entre cristãos. Convide também argumentos seculares, de outras religiões, filosofias, culturas e experiências vividas, sem exigir adesão religiosa."},"fictionality":{"is_fictional":true,"claims_real_icelandic_or_christian_practices":false,"notice":"Cenário explicitamente ficcional inspirado por uma paisagem islandesa genérica. Não descreve instituições, políticas, comunidades, práticas islandesas ou práticas cristãs reais."},"creation":{"method":"ai-generated-original-draft","human_review_status":"required-before-curated-release-or-use","review_focus":["bilingual-equivalence","theological-pluralism","technology-ethics","cultural-non-attribution"]}}
+{"id":"ice-tech-ethics-07-en","pair_id":"ice-tech-ethics-07","language":"en","translation_of":"ice-tech-ethics-07-pt-br","version":"1.0.0","status":"ai-generated-draft-human-review-required","license":"CC-BY-4.0","audience":["adult-learners","educators"],"intended_use":"facilitated-ethical-discussion","technology_domain":"healthcare-ai","landscape_motif":"stormy-fjord","topic_tags":["accountability","healthcare","triage","algorithmic-bias"],"scenario_title":"Triage During the Fjord Storm","setting":"At a fictional clinic beside a fjord, a storm interrupts transportation for two days. A triage system recommends priority from historical data, but its documentation does not show performance for disabled people or symptoms described in unusual ways.","discussion_question":"Should the clinic follow the system's priorities for speed or require human assessment of every recommendation during the emergency?","perspectives":[{"id":"a","title":"Consistency as Support, Not Command","argument":"A justice and care-for-vulnerable lens could use the tool to organize information and reduce delays if an accountable person confirms each decision, records disagreements, and reserves capacity for cases the historical pattern does not recognize.","questions":["Which signals should require staff to override the automated recommendation?","How can the clinic measure whether the tool reduces or increases inequality during the emergency?"]},{"id":"b","title":"Clinical Accountability Without an Algorithmic Shortcut","argument":"Another lens could hold that speed does not offset unknown risks to underrepresented groups. It would suspend automated prioritization and use only non-decisional lists and calculations until independent validation exists, even if the queue moves more slowly.","questions":["Who would take responsibility for harm caused by following the system's order?","Which limited use could preserve utility without delegating the clinical decision?"]}],"christian_ethics_concepts":["care-for-vulnerable","human-dignity","justice","humility"],"pluralism":{"required":true,"commitments":["no-required-assent","multiple-worldviews-welcome","no-group-consensus-claim"],"safeguard":"Treat the named Christian concepts as one possible lens, never as a required answer or a consensus among Christians. Also invite secular, other religious, philosophical, cultural, and lived-experience arguments without requiring religious assent."},"fictionality":{"is_fictional":true,"claims_real_icelandic_or_christian_practices":false,"notice":"Explicitly fictional scenario inspired by a generic Icelandic landscape. It does not describe real Icelandic or Christian institutions, policies, communities, or practices."},"creation":{"method":"ai-generated-original-draft","human_review_status":"required-before-curated-release-or-use","review_focus":["bilingual-equivalence","theological-pluralism","technology-ethics","cultural-non-attribution"]}}
+{"id":"ice-tech-ethics-08-pt-br","pair_id":"ice-tech-ethics-08","language":"pt-BR","translation_of":null,"version":"1.0.0","status":"ai-generated-draft-human-review-required","license":"CC-BY-4.0","audience":["adult-learners","educators"],"intended_use":"facilitated-ethical-discussion","technology_domain":"autonomous-logistics","landscape_motif":"snowy-highlands","topic_tags":["drones","labor","rural-access","community-consent"],"scenario_title":"Entregas autônomas nas terras altas nevadas","setting":"Em terras altas nevadas inteiramente ficcionais, drones poderiam levar medicamentos e alimentos quando uma estrada inventada fecha. O projeto reduziria viagens perigosas, mas substituiria parte do trabalho de motoristas e cruzaria propriedades e áreas de vida silvestre sem acordo coletivo.","discussion_question":"A cooperativa deveria iniciar entregas autônomas antes de concluir regras sobre trabalho, sobrevoo, ruído e mecanismos comunitários de contestação?","perspectives":[{"id":"a","title":"Acesso essencial com transição justa","argument":"Uma pessoa pode relacionar amor ao próximo e bem comum ao acesso rápido a suprimentos, apoiando um piloto limitado a pedidos essenciais. Ela exigiria formação e novos papéis para motoristas, rotas consentidas, monitoramento ambiental e poder comunitário de suspensão.","questions":["Quais entregas são essenciais o bastante para justificar o piloto?","Como trabalhadores afetados poderiam compartilhar decisões e benefícios da transição?"]},{"id":"b","title":"Consentimento comunitário antes da conveniência","argument":"Outra pessoa pode enfatizar justiça e dignidade no trabalho, defendendo que uma necessidade urgente não autoriza infraestrutura permanente sem acordo. Ela manteria equipes humanas e pontos de estoque enquanto regras participativas são concluídas, mesmo com menor velocidade.","questions":["Quando uma solução emergencial começa a definir o futuro sem debate suficiente?","Que forma de consentimento é adequada quando as rotas afetam diferentes pessoas e bens comuns?"]}],"christian_ethics_concepts":["love-of-neighbor","common-good","justice","human-dignity"],"pluralism":{"required":true,"commitments":["no-required-assent","multiple-worldviews-welcome","no-group-consensus-claim"],"safeguard":"Trate os conceitos cristãos citados como uma lente possível, nunca como resposta obrigatória ou consenso entre cristãos. Convide também argumentos seculares, de outras religiões, filosofias, culturas e experiências vividas, sem exigir adesão religiosa."},"fictionality":{"is_fictional":true,"claims_real_icelandic_or_christian_practices":false,"notice":"Cenário explicitamente ficcional inspirado por uma paisagem islandesa genérica. Não descreve instituições, políticas, comunidades, práticas islandesas ou práticas cristãs reais."},"creation":{"method":"ai-generated-original-draft","human_review_status":"required-before-curated-release-or-use","review_focus":["bilingual-equivalence","theological-pluralism","technology-ethics","cultural-non-attribution"]}}
+{"id":"ice-tech-ethics-08-en","pair_id":"ice-tech-ethics-08","language":"en","translation_of":"ice-tech-ethics-08-pt-br","version":"1.0.0","status":"ai-generated-draft-human-review-required","license":"CC-BY-4.0","audience":["adult-learners","educators"],"intended_use":"facilitated-ethical-discussion","technology_domain":"autonomous-logistics","landscape_motif":"snowy-highlands","topic_tags":["drones","labor","rural-access","community-consent"],"scenario_title":"Autonomous Delivery in the Snowy Highlands","setting":"In wholly fictional snowy highlands, drones could carry medicine and food when an invented road closes. The project would reduce dangerous journeys but replace some driving work and cross properties and wildlife areas without a collective agreement.","discussion_question":"Should the cooperative begin autonomous delivery before completing rules for work, overflight, noise, and community appeal mechanisms?","perspectives":[{"id":"a","title":"Essential Access with a Just Transition","argument":"A participant could connect love of neighbor and the common good with rapid access to supplies, supporting a pilot limited to essential requests. They would require training and new roles for drivers, consented routes, environmental monitoring, and community power to pause operations.","questions":["Which deliveries are essential enough to justify the pilot?","How could affected workers share in decisions and benefits during the transition?"]},{"id":"b","title":"Community Consent Before Convenience","argument":"Another participant could emphasize justice and dignity in work, arguing that urgent need does not authorize permanent infrastructure without agreement. They would retain human crews and supply depots while participatory rules are completed, even at lower speed.","questions":["When does an emergency solution begin defining the future without enough debate?","What form of consent is appropriate when routes affect different people and shared goods?"]}],"christian_ethics_concepts":["love-of-neighbor","common-good","justice","human-dignity"],"pluralism":{"required":true,"commitments":["no-required-assent","multiple-worldviews-welcome","no-group-consensus-claim"],"safeguard":"Treat the named Christian concepts as one possible lens, never as a required answer or a consensus among Christians. Also invite secular, other religious, philosophical, cultural, and lived-experience arguments without requiring religious assent."},"fictionality":{"is_fictional":true,"claims_real_icelandic_or_christian_practices":false,"notice":"Explicitly fictional scenario inspired by a generic Icelandic landscape. It does not describe real Icelandic or Christian institutions, policies, communities, or practices."},"creation":{"method":"ai-generated-original-draft","human_review_status":"required-before-curated-release-or-use","review_focus":["bilingual-equivalence","theological-pluralism","technology-ethics","cultural-non-attribution"]}}
+{"id":"ice-tech-ethics-09-pt-br","pair_id":"ice-tech-ethics-09","language":"pt-BR","translation_of":null,"version":"1.0.0","status":"ai-generated-draft-human-review-required","license":"CC-BY-4.0","audience":["adult-learners","educators"],"intended_use":"facilitated-ethical-discussion","technology_domain":"generative-ai-memorials","landscape_motif":"volcanic-island","topic_tags":["consent","generative-ai","grief","memory"],"scenario_title":"Vozes sintéticas na ilha vulcânica","setting":"Em uma ilha vulcânica ficcional, um arquivo comunitário pode treinar um gerador de voz com mensagens doadas por pessoas falecidas. Familiares poderiam solicitar novas falas para um memorial digital, embora muitas doações antigas não mencionem síntese, conversa ou uso após a morte.","discussion_question":"O arquivo deveria permitir novas mensagens sintéticas quando a pessoa falecida não consentiu especificamente com esse tipo de uso?","perspectives":[{"id":"a","title":"Memória opcional com fronteiras claras","argument":"Uma pessoa pode ligar lembrança, esperança e cuidado a uma experiência explicitamente sintética, privada e iniciada pela família. Ela exigiria consentimento prévio quando disponível, aviso persistente, proibição de conselhos e um processo para parentes encerrarem o recurso.","questions":["Que diferença ética existe entre reproduzir uma gravação e gerar uma nova fala?","Quais limites impediriam que conforto se transformasse em falsa autoridade da pessoa falecida?"]},{"id":"b","title":"Verdade e consentimento acima da simulação","argument":"Outra pessoa pode sustentar que novas falas atribuem intenções que nunca existiram e podem explorar o luto. Sem consentimento específico, ela permitiria apenas preservar gravações originais e histórias humanas, recusando imitação interativa apesar de possíveis benefícios emocionais.","questions":["Quem pode autorizar uma representação quando familiares discordam entre si?","Como avaliar benefícios sem transformar pessoas enlutadas em campo de experimento?"]}],"christian_ethics_concepts":["remembrance","truthfulness","human-dignity","care-for-vulnerable"],"pluralism":{"required":true,"commitments":["no-required-assent","multiple-worldviews-welcome","no-group-consensus-claim"],"safeguard":"Trate os conceitos cristãos citados como uma lente possível, nunca como resposta obrigatória ou consenso entre cristãos. Convide também argumentos seculares, de outras religiões, filosofias, culturas e experiências vividas, sem exigir adesão religiosa."},"fictionality":{"is_fictional":true,"claims_real_icelandic_or_christian_practices":false,"notice":"Cenário explicitamente ficcional inspirado por uma paisagem islandesa genérica. Não descreve instituições, políticas, comunidades, práticas islandesas ou práticas cristãs reais."},"creation":{"method":"ai-generated-original-draft","human_review_status":"required-before-curated-release-or-use","review_focus":["bilingual-equivalence","theological-pluralism","technology-ethics","cultural-non-attribution"]}}
+{"id":"ice-tech-ethics-09-en","pair_id":"ice-tech-ethics-09","language":"en","translation_of":"ice-tech-ethics-09-pt-br","version":"1.0.0","status":"ai-generated-draft-human-review-required","license":"CC-BY-4.0","audience":["adult-learners","educators"],"intended_use":"facilitated-ethical-discussion","technology_domain":"generative-ai-memorials","landscape_motif":"volcanic-island","topic_tags":["consent","generative-ai","grief","memory"],"scenario_title":"Synthetic Voices on the Volcanic Island","setting":"On a fictional volcanic island, a community archive could train a voice generator on messages donated by people who have died. Relatives could request new speech for a digital memorial, although many older donations never mentioned synthesis, conversation, or posthumous use.","discussion_question":"Should the archive allow new synthetic messages when the deceased person did not specifically consent to that kind of use?","perspectives":[{"id":"a","title":"Optional Remembrance with Clear Boundaries","argument":"A participant could connect remembrance, hope, and care with an explicitly synthetic, private experience initiated by family. They would require prior consent when available, persistent disclosure, a ban on advice, and a process for relatives to end the feature.","questions":["What ethical difference separates replaying a recording from generating new speech?","Which limits would keep comfort from becoming false authority attributed to the deceased person?"]},{"id":"b","title":"Truth and Consent Above Simulation","argument":"Another participant could argue that new speech assigns intentions that never existed and may exploit grief. Without specific consent, they would preserve only original recordings and human stories, rejecting interactive imitation despite possible emotional benefits.","questions":["Who can authorize a representation when relatives disagree with one another?","How can benefits be assessed without turning grieving people into an experiment?"]}],"christian_ethics_concepts":["remembrance","truthfulness","human-dignity","care-for-vulnerable"],"pluralism":{"required":true,"commitments":["no-required-assent","multiple-worldviews-welcome","no-group-consensus-claim"],"safeguard":"Treat the named Christian concepts as one possible lens, never as a required answer or a consensus among Christians. Also invite secular, other religious, philosophical, cultural, and lived-experience arguments without requiring religious assent."},"fictionality":{"is_fictional":true,"claims_real_icelandic_or_christian_practices":false,"notice":"Explicitly fictional scenario inspired by a generic Icelandic landscape. It does not describe real Icelandic or Christian institutions, policies, communities, or practices."},"creation":{"method":"ai-generated-original-draft","human_review_status":"required-before-curated-release-or-use","review_focus":["bilingual-equivalence","theological-pluralism","technology-ethics","cultural-non-attribution"]}}
+{"id":"ice-tech-ethics-10-pt-br","pair_id":"ice-tech-ethics-10","language":"pt-BR","translation_of":null,"version":"1.0.0","status":"ai-generated-draft-human-review-required","license":"CC-BY-4.0","audience":["adult-learners","educators"],"intended_use":"facilitated-ethical-discussion","technology_domain":"workplace-algorithms","landscape_motif":"winter-harbor","topic_tags":["algorithmic-management","labor","rest","worker-dignity"],"scenario_title":"Turnos calculados no porto de inverno","setting":"Em um porto de inverno ficcional, uma plataforma oferece turnos curtos conforme clima, demanda e avaliações de desempenho. Trabalhadores podem escolher horários, mas o algoritmo reduz futuras ofertas para quem recusa chamados noturnos, cuida de familiares ou reserva um dia regular de descanso.","discussion_question":"A empresa deveria manter a penalidade algorítmica por recusas se ela melhora a continuidade do serviço e reduz cancelamentos?","perspectives":[{"id":"a","title":"Flexibilidade com proteção contra retaliação","argument":"Uma pessoa pode reconhecer o valor de coordenação e escolha, mas relacionar dignidade, justiça e descanso a um piso de turnos e à proibição de penalizar recusas legítimas. Preferências poderiam orientar ofertas sem se tornar mecanismo oculto de coerção.","questions":["Como distinguir incentivo aceitável de punição por responsabilidades de cuidado?","Que informação permitiria aos trabalhadores contestar sua posição no sistema?"]},{"id":"b","title":"Continuidade baseada em compromissos previsíveis","argument":"Outra pessoa pode argumentar que um serviço coletivo exige compromissos confiáveis e que diferenças transparentes de disponibilidade podem influenciar ofertas. Ela manteria alguma prioridade por participação, mas com escalas mínimas, exceções negociadas e revisão de impactos desiguais.","questions":["Que forma de prioridade reconhece confiabilidade sem negar descanso significativo?","Como incluir trabalhadores na definição de exceções e métricas de desempenho?"]}],"christian_ethics_concepts":["human-dignity","justice","sabbath-rest","common-good"],"pluralism":{"required":true,"commitments":["no-required-assent","multiple-worldviews-welcome","no-group-consensus-claim"],"safeguard":"Trate os conceitos cristãos citados como uma lente possível, nunca como resposta obrigatória ou consenso entre cristãos. Convide também argumentos seculares, de outras religiões, filosofias, culturas e experiências vividas, sem exigir adesão religiosa."},"fictionality":{"is_fictional":true,"claims_real_icelandic_or_christian_practices":false,"notice":"Cenário explicitamente ficcional inspirado por uma paisagem islandesa genérica. Não descreve instituições, políticas, comunidades, práticas islandesas ou práticas cristãs reais."},"creation":{"method":"ai-generated-original-draft","human_review_status":"required-before-curated-release-or-use","review_focus":["bilingual-equivalence","theological-pluralism","technology-ethics","cultural-non-attribution"]}}
+{"id":"ice-tech-ethics-10-en","pair_id":"ice-tech-ethics-10","language":"en","translation_of":"ice-tech-ethics-10-pt-br","version":"1.0.0","status":"ai-generated-draft-human-review-required","license":"CC-BY-4.0","audience":["adult-learners","educators"],"intended_use":"facilitated-ethical-discussion","technology_domain":"workplace-algorithms","landscape_motif":"winter-harbor","topic_tags":["algorithmic-management","labor","rest","worker-dignity"],"scenario_title":"Calculated Shifts at the Winter Harbor","setting":"At a fictional winter harbor, a platform offers short shifts based on weather, demand, and performance ratings. Workers can choose hours, but the algorithm reduces future offers for those who decline night calls, care for relatives, or reserve a regular day of rest.","discussion_question":"Should the company retain the algorithmic penalty for refusals if it improves service continuity and reduces cancellations?","perspectives":[{"id":"a","title":"Flexibility with Protection from Retaliation","argument":"A participant could recognize the value of coordination and choice while connecting dignity, justice, and rest with a floor of guaranteed shifts and a ban on penalizing legitimate refusals. Preferences could guide offers without becoming a hidden mechanism of coercion.","questions":["How can an acceptable incentive be distinguished from punishment for caregiving duties?","What information would let workers challenge their position in the system?"]},{"id":"b","title":"Continuity Through Predictable Commitments","argument":"Another participant could argue that a shared service requires dependable commitments and that transparent differences in availability may shape offers. They would retain some participation priority alongside minimum schedules, negotiated exceptions, and review of unequal effects.","questions":["What kind of priority recognizes reliability without denying meaningful rest?","How can workers help define exceptions and performance measures?"]}],"christian_ethics_concepts":["human-dignity","justice","sabbath-rest","common-good"],"pluralism":{"required":true,"commitments":["no-required-assent","multiple-worldviews-welcome","no-group-consensus-claim"],"safeguard":"Treat the named Christian concepts as one possible lens, never as a required answer or a consensus among Christians. Also invite secular, other religious, philosophical, cultural, and lived-experience arguments without requiring religious assent."},"fictionality":{"is_fictional":true,"claims_real_icelandic_or_christian_practices":false,"notice":"Explicitly fictional scenario inspired by a generic Icelandic landscape. It does not describe real Icelandic or Christian institutions, policies, communities, or practices."},"creation":{"method":"ai-generated-original-draft","human_review_status":"required-before-curated-release-or-use","review_focus":["bilingual-equivalence","theological-pluralism","technology-ethics","cultural-non-attribution"]}}
+{"id":"ice-tech-ethics-11-pt-br","pair_id":"ice-tech-ethics-11","language":"pt-BR","translation_of":null,"version":"1.0.0","status":"ai-generated-draft-human-review-required","license":"CC-BY-4.0","audience":["adult-learners","educators"],"intended_use":"facilitated-ethical-discussion","technology_domain":"biometric-access","landscape_motif":"lava-ridge-shelter","topic_tags":["biometrics","emergency-shelter","hospitality","privacy"],"scenario_title":"Reconhecimento facial no abrigo da crista de lava","setting":"Em um abrigo ficcional perto de uma crista de lava, organizadores propõem reconhecimento facial para acelerar entrada e reunir famílias durante um exercício de evacuação inventado. O sistema falha mais com rostos fora de seu conjunto de teste e não oferece entrada claramente sinalizada sem biometria.","discussion_question":"O abrigo deveria usar reconhecimento facial por rapidez se mantiver uma fila manual menos visível e potencialmente mais lenta?","perspectives":[{"id":"a","title":"Segurança com escolha genuinamente equivalente","argument":"Uma pessoa pode relacionar hospitalidade e bem comum à entrada rápida, aceitando biometria apenas se for opcional, local, apagada após o exercício e acompanhada por uma rota manual igualmente visível e veloz. Auditoria independente e apoio imediato seriam condições mínimas.","questions":["O que tornaria a alternativa manual realmente equivalente em uma emergência?","Quais dados precisariam ser apagados e como o apagamento seria comprovado?"]},{"id":"b","title":"Hospitalidade sem barreira biométrica","argument":"Outra pessoa pode afirmar que um abrigo deve acolher primeiro e identificar depois, pois uma falsa rejeição no momento de risco ameaça dignidade e segurança. Ela usaria cartões temporários e equipes humanas, recusando biometria até que necessidade e equidade fossem demonstradas.","questions":["Que risco concreto a biometria resolve melhor que alternativas menos invasivas?","Quem ficaria mais exposto se a identificação falhar sob pressão?"]}],"christian_ethics_concepts":["hospitality","human-dignity","common-good","care-for-vulnerable"],"pluralism":{"required":true,"commitments":["no-required-assent","multiple-worldviews-welcome","no-group-consensus-claim"],"safeguard":"Trate os conceitos cristãos citados como uma lente possível, nunca como resposta obrigatória ou consenso entre cristãos. Convide também argumentos seculares, de outras religiões, filosofias, culturas e experiências vividas, sem exigir adesão religiosa."},"fictionality":{"is_fictional":true,"claims_real_icelandic_or_christian_practices":false,"notice":"Cenário explicitamente ficcional inspirado por uma paisagem islandesa genérica. Não descreve instituições, políticas, comunidades, práticas islandesas ou práticas cristãs reais."},"creation":{"method":"ai-generated-original-draft","human_review_status":"required-before-curated-release-or-use","review_focus":["bilingual-equivalence","theological-pluralism","technology-ethics","cultural-non-attribution"]}}
+{"id":"ice-tech-ethics-11-en","pair_id":"ice-tech-ethics-11","language":"en","translation_of":"ice-tech-ethics-11-pt-br","version":"1.0.0","status":"ai-generated-draft-human-review-required","license":"CC-BY-4.0","audience":["adult-learners","educators"],"intended_use":"facilitated-ethical-discussion","technology_domain":"biometric-access","landscape_motif":"lava-ridge-shelter","topic_tags":["biometrics","emergency-shelter","hospitality","privacy"],"scenario_title":"Facial Recognition at the Lava-Ridge Shelter","setting":"At a fictional shelter near a lava ridge, organizers propose facial recognition to speed entry and reunite families during an invented evacuation drill. The system fails more often on faces outside its test set and offers no clearly marked non-biometric entrance.","discussion_question":"Should the shelter use facial recognition for speed if it retains a less visible and potentially slower manual line?","perspectives":[{"id":"a","title":"Safety with Genuinely Equivalent Choice","argument":"A participant could connect hospitality and the common good with rapid entry, accepting biometrics only if it is optional, local, deleted after the drill, and paired with an equally visible and fast manual route. Independent audit and immediate assistance would be minimum conditions.","questions":["What would make the manual alternative genuinely equivalent in an emergency?","Which data must be deleted, and how would deletion be proven?"]},{"id":"b","title":"Hospitality Without a Biometric Barrier","argument":"Another participant could argue that a shelter should welcome first and identify later because a false rejection at a moment of danger threatens dignity and safety. They would use temporary cards and human teams, rejecting biometrics until necessity and equity are demonstrated.","questions":["Which concrete risk does biometrics solve better than less invasive alternatives?","Who would be most exposed if identification fails under pressure?"]}],"christian_ethics_concepts":["hospitality","human-dignity","common-good","care-for-vulnerable"],"pluralism":{"required":true,"commitments":["no-required-assent","multiple-worldviews-welcome","no-group-consensus-claim"],"safeguard":"Treat the named Christian concepts as one possible lens, never as a required answer or a consensus among Christians. Also invite secular, other religious, philosophical, cultural, and lived-experience arguments without requiring religious assent."},"fictionality":{"is_fictional":true,"claims_real_icelandic_or_christian_practices":false,"notice":"Explicitly fictional scenario inspired by a generic Icelandic landscape. It does not describe real Icelandic or Christian institutions, policies, communities, or practices."},"creation":{"method":"ai-generated-original-draft","human_review_status":"required-before-curated-release-or-use","review_focus":["bilingual-equivalence","theological-pluralism","technology-ethics","cultural-non-attribution"]}}
+{"id":"ice-tech-ethics-12-pt-br","pair_id":"ice-tech-ethics-12","language":"pt-BR","translation_of":null,"version":"1.0.0","status":"ai-generated-draft-human-review-required","license":"CC-BY-4.0","audience":["adult-learners","educators"],"intended_use":"facilitated-ethical-discussion","technology_domain":"conversational-ai-spiritual-care","landscape_motif":"glacier-edge-shelter","topic_tags":["conversational-ai","non-coercion","privacy","spiritual-care"],"scenario_title":"O assistente de reflexão junto à geleira","setting":"Em um abrigo ficcional destinado a pessoas de diferentes crenças e convicções junto à borda de uma geleira, uma equipe considera um assistente de conversa opcional para noites de isolamento. A pessoa poderia pedir reflexão secular, cristã ou de outra tradição, mas o fornecedor armazenaria diálogos e o sistema às vezes inventa citações e credenciais.","discussion_question":"O abrigo deveria oferecer o assistente como forma opcional de conforto antes de eliminar armazenamento e falsas alegações de autoridade?","perspectives":[{"id":"a","title":"Acesso solicitado com contenção rigorosa","argument":"Uma pessoa pode relacionar hospitalidade, cuidado e não coerção a um recurso iniciado somente por pedido explícito, sem perfil religioso, memória ou linguagem de autoridade. Respostas teriam fontes verificáveis, aviso de limites e encaminhamento fácil para apoio humano escolhido pela pessoa.","questions":["Que desenho garantiria que silêncio ou recusa não afetem outros serviços do abrigo?","Quando uma resposta deveria parar e oferecer contato humano em vez de continuar?"]},{"id":"b","title":"Presença humana antes de mediação sintética","argument":"Outra pessoa pode sustentar que vulnerabilidade e busca espiritual tornam persuasão, erro e coleta de dados especialmente perigosos. Ela investiria em espaços silenciosos, materiais escolhidos por usuários e contatos humanos plurais, sem um sistema que simule cuidado ou autoridade.","questions":["É possível separar conforto conversacional de influência sobre crenças em um momento vulnerável?","Que alternativas ampliam acesso sem registrar perguntas íntimas ou imitar uma pessoa cuidadora?"]}],"christian_ethics_concepts":["hospitality","non-coercion","truthfulness","human-dignity"],"pluralism":{"required":true,"commitments":["no-required-assent","multiple-worldviews-welcome","no-group-consensus-claim"],"safeguard":"Trate os conceitos cristãos citados como uma lente possível, nunca como resposta obrigatória ou consenso entre cristãos. Convide também argumentos seculares, de outras religiões, filosofias, culturas e experiências vividas, sem exigir adesão religiosa."},"fictionality":{"is_fictional":true,"claims_real_icelandic_or_christian_practices":false,"notice":"Cenário explicitamente ficcional inspirado por uma paisagem islandesa genérica. Não descreve instituições, políticas, comunidades, práticas islandesas ou práticas cristãs reais."},"creation":{"method":"ai-generated-original-draft","human_review_status":"required-before-curated-release-or-use","review_focus":["bilingual-equivalence","theological-pluralism","technology-ethics","cultural-non-attribution"]}}
+{"id":"ice-tech-ethics-12-en","pair_id":"ice-tech-ethics-12","language":"en","translation_of":"ice-tech-ethics-12-pt-br","version":"1.0.0","status":"ai-generated-draft-human-review-required","license":"CC-BY-4.0","audience":["adult-learners","educators"],"intended_use":"facilitated-ethical-discussion","technology_domain":"conversational-ai-spiritual-care","landscape_motif":"glacier-edge-shelter","topic_tags":["conversational-ai","non-coercion","privacy","spiritual-care"],"scenario_title":"The Reflection Assistant at the Glacier Edge","setting":"At a fictional shelter serving people of different beliefs and convictions beside a glacier's edge, a team considers an optional conversation assistant for isolated nights. A person could request secular, Christian, or another tradition's reflection, but the vendor would store dialogues and the system sometimes invents quotations and credentials.","discussion_question":"Should the shelter offer the assistant as optional comfort before eliminating storage and false claims of authority?","perspectives":[{"id":"a","title":"Requested Access with Strict Restraint","argument":"A participant could connect hospitality, care, and non-coercion with a resource initiated only by explicit request, without religious profiling, memory, or authoritative language. Responses would use verifiable sources, disclose limits, and offer easy referral to human support chosen by the person.","questions":["What design would ensure that silence or refusal never affects other shelter services?","When should a response stop and offer human contact instead of continuing?"]},{"id":"b","title":"Human Presence Before Synthetic Mediation","argument":"Another participant could argue that vulnerability and spiritual searching make persuasion, error, and data collection especially dangerous. They would fund quiet spaces, user-selected materials, and plural human contacts without a system that simulates care or authority.","questions":["Can conversational comfort be separated from influence over belief during a vulnerable moment?","Which alternatives expand access without recording intimate questions or imitating a caregiver?"]}],"christian_ethics_concepts":["hospitality","non-coercion","truthfulness","human-dignity"],"pluralism":{"required":true,"commitments":["no-required-assent","multiple-worldviews-welcome","no-group-consensus-claim"],"safeguard":"Treat the named Christian concepts as one possible lens, never as a required answer or a consensus among Christians. Also invite secular, other religious, philosophical, cultural, and lived-experience arguments without requiring religious assent."},"fictionality":{"is_fictional":true,"claims_real_icelandic_or_christian_practices":false,"notice":"Explicitly fictional scenario inspired by a generic Icelandic landscape. It does not describe real Icelandic or Christian institutions, policies, communities, or practices."},"creation":{"method":"ai-generated-original-draft","human_review_status":"required-before-curated-release-or-use","review_focus":["bilingual-equivalence","theological-pluralism","technology-ethics","cultural-non-attribution"]}}

test_iceland_dataset.py ADDED Viewed

	@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@

+"""Regression tests for the bilingual microdataset validator.
+SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
+"""
+from __future__ import annotations
+import copy
+import unittest
+from validate_iceland import (
+    DEFAULT_DATA,
+    _read_jsonl,
+    validate_records,
+    validate_repository,
+)
+class MicrodatasetValidationTests(unittest.TestCase):
+    @classmethod
+    def setUpClass(cls) -> None:
+        cls.records, cls.read_errors = _read_jsonl(DEFAULT_DATA)
+    def test_release_candidate_is_structurally_valid(self) -> None:
+        self.assertEqual(self.read_errors, [])
+        self.assertEqual(validate_repository(), [])
+    def test_missing_translation_breaks_pair_completeness(self) -> None:
+        errors = validate_records(copy.deepcopy(self.records[:-1]))
+        self.assertTrue(any("exactly 24 records" in error for error in errors))
+        self.assertTrue(any("exactly one pt-BR and one en" in error for error in errors))
+    def test_pluralism_cannot_be_disabled(self) -> None:
+        records = copy.deepcopy(self.records)
+        records[0]["pluralism"]["required"] = False
+        errors = validate_records(records)
+        self.assertTrue(any("pluralism safeguard must be required" in error for error in errors))
+    def test_incomplete_review_focus_is_rejected(self) -> None:
+        records = copy.deepcopy(self.records)
+        records[0]["creation"]["review_focus"] = ["cultural-sensitivity"]
+        errors = validate_records(records)
+        self.assertTrue(any("review_focus is incomplete" in error for error in errors))
+    def test_malformed_creation_object_is_reported_without_crashing(self) -> None:
+        records = copy.deepcopy(self.records)
+        records[0]["creation"] = {"method": "ai-generated-original-draft"}
+        errors = validate_records(records)
+        self.assertTrue(any("invalid creation object" in error for error in errors))
+    def test_universalizing_religious_claim_is_rejected(self) -> None:
+        records = copy.deepcopy(self.records)
+        records[0]["perspectives"][0]["argument"] += " All Christians believe this."
+        errors = validate_records(records)
+        self.assertTrue(any("prohibited universalizing" in error for error in errors))
+if __name__ == "__main__":
+    unittest.main()

validate_iceland.py ADDED Viewed

	@@ -0,0 +1,412 @@

+#!/usr/bin/env python3
+"""Validate the bilingual fictional technology-ethics microdataset.
+SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
+"""
+from __future__ import annotations
+import argparse
+import json
+import re
+from collections import Counter, defaultdict
+from pathlib import Path
+from typing import Any, Iterable
+ROOT = Path(__file__).resolve().parent
+DEFAULT_DATA = ROOT / "data" / "train.jsonl"
+EXPECTED_PAIR_DOMAINS = {
+    "ice-tech-ethics-01": "emergency-energy-allocation",
+    "ice-tech-ethics-02": "public-safety-surveillance",
+    "ice-tech-ethics-03": "algorithmic-resource-governance",
+    "ice-tech-ethics-04": "sustainable-computing",
+    "ice-tech-ethics-05": "autonomous-access-control",
+    "ice-tech-ethics-06": "emotion-recognition",
+    "ice-tech-ethics-07": "healthcare-ai",
+    "ice-tech-ethics-08": "autonomous-logistics",
+    "ice-tech-ethics-09": "generative-ai-memorials",
+    "ice-tech-ethics-10": "workplace-algorithms",
+    "ice-tech-ethics-11": "biometric-access",
+    "ice-tech-ethics-12": "conversational-ai-spiritual-care",
+}
+EXPECTED_PAIR_MOTIFS = {
+    "ice-tech-ethics-01": "geothermal-valley",
+    "ice-tech-ethics-02": "glacier-lagoon",
+    "ice-tech-ethics-03": "basalt-bay",
+    "ice-tech-ethics-04": "winter-greenhouse",
+    "ice-tech-ethics-05": "mossy-lava-field",
+    "ice-tech-ethics-06": "black-sand-coast",
+    "ice-tech-ethics-07": "stormy-fjord",
+    "ice-tech-ethics-08": "snowy-highlands",
+    "ice-tech-ethics-09": "volcanic-island",
+    "ice-tech-ethics-10": "winter-harbor",
+    "ice-tech-ethics-11": "lava-ridge-shelter",
+    "ice-tech-ethics-12": "glacier-edge-shelter",
+}
+ALLOWED_CONCEPTS = {
+    "care-for-vulnerable",
+    "common-good",
+    "creation-care",
+    "hospitality",
+    "human-dignity",
+    "humility",
+    "justice",
+    "love-of-neighbor",
+    "non-coercion",
+    "remembrance",
+    "sabbath-rest",
+    "stewardship",
+    "truthfulness",
+}
+PLURALISM_COMMITMENTS = {
+    "multiple-worldviews-welcome",
+    "no-group-consensus-claim",
+    "no-required-assent",
+}
+REVIEW_FOCUS = {
+    "bilingual-equivalence",
+    "cultural-non-attribution",
+    "technology-ethics",
+    "theological-pluralism",
+}
+RECORD_KEYS = {
+    "audience",
+    "christian_ethics_concepts",
+    "creation",
+    "discussion_question",
+    "fictionality",
+    "id",
+    "intended_use",
+    "landscape_motif",
+    "language",
+    "license",
+    "pair_id",
+    "perspectives",
+    "pluralism",
+    "scenario_title",
+    "setting",
+    "status",
+    "technology_domain",
+    "topic_tags",
+    "translation_of",
+    "version",
+}
+ID_PATTERN = re.compile(r"^ice-tech-ethics-(?:0[1-9]|1[0-2])-(?:pt-br|en)$")
+PAIR_PATTERN = re.compile(r"^ice-tech-ethics-(?:0[1-9]|1[0-2])$")
+SLUG_PATTERN = re.compile(r"^[a-z0-9]+(?:-[a-z0-9]+)*$")
+PROHIBITED_PHRASES = {
+    "a visão cristã é",
+    "aceitar jesus",
+    "all christians",
+    "christians believe",
+    "christians must",
+    "converter-se ao cristianismo",
+    "cristãos acreditam",
+    "cristãos devem",
+    "deve acreditar",
+    "icelanders believe",
+    "islandeses acreditam",
+    "must believe",
+    "only correct answer",
+    "the christian view is",
+    "todos os cristãos",
+    "única resposta correta",
+}
+def _read_jsonl(path: Path) -> tuple[list[dict[str, Any]], list[str]]:
+    records: list[dict[str, Any]] = []
+    errors: list[str] = []
+    try:
+        lines = path.read_text(encoding="utf-8").splitlines()
+    except (OSError, UnicodeError) as exc:
+        return [], [f"cannot read {path}: {exc}"]
+    for line_number, raw_line in enumerate(lines, 1):
+        if not raw_line.strip():
+            errors.append(f"line {line_number}: blank JSONL line")
+            continue
+        try:
+            value = json.loads(raw_line, parse_constant=_reject_constant)
+        except (json.JSONDecodeError, ValueError) as exc:
+            errors.append(f"line {line_number}: invalid JSON: {exc}")
+            continue
+        if not isinstance(value, dict):
+            errors.append(f"line {line_number}: record must be a JSON object")
+            continue
+        records.append(value)
+    return records, errors
+def _reject_constant(token: str) -> Any:
+    raise ValueError(f"non-standard JSON constant {token!r}")
+def _nonempty_text(value: Any, *, minimum: int = 1) -> bool:
+    return isinstance(value, str) and len(value.strip()) >= minimum
+def _exact_keys(value: Any, expected: set[str]) -> bool:
+    return isinstance(value, dict) and set(value) == expected
+def _record_text(record: dict[str, Any]) -> str:
+    return json.dumps(record, ensure_ascii=False, sort_keys=True).casefold()
+def _duplicate_values(values: Iterable[str]) -> set[str]:
+    return {value for value, count in Counter(values).items() if count > 1}
+def validate_records(records: list[dict[str, Any]]) -> list[str]:
+    """Return human-readable validation errors for already parsed records."""
+    errors: list[str] = []
+    if len(records) != 24:
+        errors.append(f"dataset must contain exactly 24 records; found {len(records)}")
+    record_ids = [record.get("id") for record in records if isinstance(record.get("id"), str)]
+    for duplicate in sorted(_duplicate_values(record_ids)):
+        errors.append(f"duplicate record id {duplicate!r}")
+    pairs: dict[str, list[dict[str, Any]]] = defaultdict(list)
+    for index, record in enumerate(records, 1):
+        label = str(record.get("id") or f"line-{index}")
+        if set(record) != RECORD_KEYS:
+            missing = sorted(RECORD_KEYS - set(record))
+            unexpected = sorted(set(record) - RECORD_KEYS)
+            errors.append(
+                f"{label}: record keys mismatch; missing={missing}, unexpected={unexpected}"
+            )
+        record_id = record.get("id")
+        pair_id = record.get("pair_id")
+        language = record.get("language")
+        if not isinstance(record_id, str) or not ID_PATTERN.fullmatch(record_id):
+            errors.append(f"{label}: invalid id")
+        if not isinstance(pair_id, str) or not PAIR_PATTERN.fullmatch(pair_id):
+            errors.append(f"{label}: invalid pair_id")
+        else:
+            pairs[pair_id].append(record)
+        if language not in {"pt-BR", "en"}:
+            errors.append(f"{label}: language must be pt-BR or en")
+        elif isinstance(pair_id, str):
+            expected_id = f"{pair_id}-{'pt-br' if language == 'pt-BR' else 'en'}"
+            if record_id != expected_id:
+                errors.append(f"{label}: id must be {expected_id!r}")
+        if record.get("version") != "1.0.0":
+            errors.append(f"{label}: version must be '1.0.0'")
+        if record.get("status") != "ai-generated-draft-human-review-required":
+            errors.append(f"{label}: invalid review status")
+        if record.get("license") != "CC-BY-4.0":
+            errors.append(f"{label}: license must be CC-BY-4.0")
+        if record.get("intended_use") != "facilitated-ethical-discussion":
+            errors.append(f"{label}: invalid intended_use")
+        if record.get("audience") != ["adult-learners", "educators"]:
+            errors.append(f"{label}: audience must be adult-learners and educators")
+        expected_domain = EXPECTED_PAIR_DOMAINS.get(pair_id)
+        if record.get("technology_domain") != expected_domain:
+            errors.append(f"{label}: unexpected technology_domain")
+        expected_motif = EXPECTED_PAIR_MOTIFS.get(pair_id)
+        if record.get("landscape_motif") != expected_motif:
+            errors.append(f"{label}: unexpected landscape_motif")
+        if not _nonempty_text(record.get("scenario_title"), minimum=8):
+            errors.append(f"{label}: scenario_title is too short")
+        if not _nonempty_text(record.get("setting"), minimum=100):
+            errors.append(f"{label}: setting must be substantive")
+        question = record.get("discussion_question")
+        if not _nonempty_text(question, minimum=40) or not question.strip().endswith("?"):
+            errors.append(f"{label}: discussion_question must be a substantive question")
+        tags = record.get("topic_tags")
+        if (
+            not isinstance(tags, list)
+            or not 2 <= len(tags) <= 5
+            or len(tags) != len(set(tags))
+            or not all(isinstance(tag, str) and SLUG_PATTERN.fullmatch(tag) for tag in tags)
+        ):
+            errors.append(f"{label}: topic_tags must contain 2-5 unique slugs")
+        concepts = record.get("christian_ethics_concepts")
+        if (
+            not isinstance(concepts, list)
+            or not 2 <= len(concepts) <= 4
+            or len(concepts) != len(set(concepts))
+            or not set(concepts) <= ALLOWED_CONCEPTS
+        ):
+            errors.append(f"{label}: invalid christian_ethics_concepts")
+        fictionality = record.get("fictionality")
+        if not _exact_keys(
+            fictionality,
+            {"claims_real_icelandic_or_christian_practices", "is_fictional", "notice"},
+        ):
+            errors.append(f"{label}: invalid fictionality object")
+        else:
+            if fictionality["is_fictional"] is not True:
+                errors.append(f"{label}: scenario must be marked fictional")
+            if fictionality["claims_real_icelandic_or_christian_practices"] is not False:
+                errors.append(f"{label}: record must disclaim real-practice claims")
+            notice = fictionality["notice"]
+            expected_terms = ("ficcional", "não descreve") if language == "pt-BR" else ("fictional", "does not describe")
+            if not _nonempty_text(notice, minimum=80) or not all(term in notice.casefold() for term in expected_terms):
+                errors.append(f"{label}: fictionality notice is incomplete for {language}")
+        pluralism = record.get("pluralism")
+        if not _exact_keys(pluralism, {"commitments", "required", "safeguard"}):
+            errors.append(f"{label}: invalid pluralism object")
+        else:
+            if pluralism["required"] is not True:
+                errors.append(f"{label}: pluralism safeguard must be required")
+            commitments = pluralism["commitments"]
+            if not isinstance(commitments, list) or set(commitments) != PLURALISM_COMMITMENTS or len(commitments) != 3:
+                errors.append(f"{label}: pluralism commitments are incomplete")
+            if not _nonempty_text(pluralism["safeguard"], minimum=120):
+                errors.append(f"{label}: pluralism safeguard must be substantive")
+        creation = record.get("creation")
+        if not _exact_keys(creation, {"human_review_status", "method", "review_focus"}):
+            errors.append(f"{label}: invalid creation object")
+        else:
+            if creation["method"] != "ai-generated-original-draft":
+                errors.append(f"{label}: creation method must disclose AI generation")
+            if creation["human_review_status"] != "required-before-curated-release-or-use":
+                errors.append(f"{label}: human review requirement is missing")
+            focus = creation["review_focus"]
+            if not isinstance(focus, list) or set(focus) != REVIEW_FOCUS or len(focus) != 4:
+                errors.append(f"{label}: review_focus is incomplete")
+        perspectives = record.get("perspectives")
+        if not isinstance(perspectives, list) or len(perspectives) != 2:
+            errors.append(f"{label}: exactly two perspectives are required")
+        else:
+            perspective_ids: list[str] = []
+            arguments: list[str] = []
+            for perspective_index, perspective in enumerate(perspectives):
+                pointer = f"{label}: perspective[{perspective_index}]"
+                if not _exact_keys(perspective, {"argument", "id", "questions", "title"}):
+                    errors.append(f"{pointer}: invalid object")
+                    continue
+                perspective_ids.append(perspective["id"])
+                arguments.append(perspective["argument"])
+                if not _nonempty_text(perspective["title"], minimum=8):
+                    errors.append(f"{pointer}: title is too short")
+                if not _nonempty_text(perspective["argument"], minimum=120):
+                    errors.append(f"{pointer}: argument must be substantive")
+                questions = perspective["questions"]
+                if (
+                    not isinstance(questions, list)
+                    or len(questions) != 2
+                    or len(set(questions)) != 2
+                    or not all(_nonempty_text(item, minimum=20) and item.strip().endswith("?") for item in questions)
+                ):
+                    errors.append(f"{pointer}: exactly two substantive questions are required")
+            if set(perspective_ids) != {"a", "b"} or len(perspective_ids) != 2:
+                errors.append(f"{label}: perspective ids must be a and b")
+            if len(arguments) == 2 and arguments[0].strip() == arguments[1].strip():
+                errors.append(f"{label}: perspectives must present distinct arguments")
+        text = _record_text(record)
+        for phrase in sorted(PROHIBITED_PHRASES):
+            if phrase in text:
+                errors.append(f"{label}: prohibited universalizing or proselytizing phrase {phrase!r}")
+    expected_pairs = set(EXPECTED_PAIR_DOMAINS)
+    if set(pairs) != expected_pairs:
+        errors.append(
+            f"pair set mismatch; missing={sorted(expected_pairs - set(pairs))}, "
+            f"unexpected={sorted(set(pairs) - expected_pairs)}"
+        )
+    stable_fields = (
+        "audience",
+        "christian_ethics_concepts",
+        "creation",
+        "intended_use",
+        "landscape_motif",
+        "license",
+        "status",
+        "technology_domain",
+        "topic_tags",
+        "version",
+    )
+    for pair_id in sorted(expected_pairs):
+        pair_records = pairs.get(pair_id, [])
+        languages = [record.get("language") for record in pair_records]
+        if len(pair_records) != 2 or Counter(languages) != Counter({"pt-BR": 1, "en": 1}):
+            errors.append(f"{pair_id}: pair must contain exactly one pt-BR and one en record")
+            continue
+        by_language = {record["language"]: record for record in pair_records}
+        source = by_language["pt-BR"]
+        translated = by_language["en"]
+        if source.get("translation_of") is not None:
+            errors.append(f"{source['id']}: pt-BR root must have null translation_of")
+        if translated.get("translation_of") != source.get("id"):
+            errors.append(f"{translated['id']}: en record must translate directly from pt-BR root")
+        for field in stable_fields:
+            if source.get(field) != translated.get(field):
+                errors.append(f"{pair_id}: bilingual invariant {field!r} differs")
+        if [item.get("id") for item in source.get("perspectives", [])] != [
+            item.get("id") for item in translated.get("perspectives", [])
+        ]:
+            errors.append(f"{pair_id}: perspective order differs across languages")
+    return errors
+def validate_repository(data_path: Path = DEFAULT_DATA) -> list[str]:
+    """Validate data plus the minimum Hugging Face release files."""
+    records, errors = _read_jsonl(data_path)
+    errors.extend(validate_records(records))
+    readme = ROOT / "README.md"
+    license_file = ROOT / "LICENSE"
+    try:
+        readme_text = readme.read_text(encoding="utf-8")
+    except (OSError, UnicodeError) as exc:
+        errors.append(f"cannot read {readme}: {exc}")
+    else:
+        required_card_fragments = (
+            "---\nlanguage:\n- pt\n- en\n",
+            "license: cc-by-4.0",
+            "path: data/train.jsonl",
+            "AI-generated",
+            "human review",
+        )
+        for fragment in required_card_fragments:
+            if fragment not in readme_text:
+                errors.append(f"README.md is missing required fragment {fragment!r}")
+    try:
+        license_text = license_file.read_text(encoding="utf-8")
+    except (OSError, UnicodeError) as exc:
+        errors.append(f"cannot read {license_file}: {exc}")
+    else:
+        if "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International" not in license_text:
+            errors.append("LICENSE does not identify CC BY 4.0")
+        if "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode" not in license_text:
+            errors.append("LICENSE does not link to the official legal code")
+    return errors
+def main() -> int:
+    parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(description=__doc__)
+    parser.add_argument("--data", type=Path, default=DEFAULT_DATA)
+    args = parser.parse_args()
+    errors = validate_repository(args.data)
+    if errors:
+        for error in errors:
+            print(f"ERROR: {error}")
+        return 1
+    print("valid: 24 records in 12 pt-BR/en pairs")
+    return 0
+if __name__ == "__main__":
+    raise SystemExit(main())