MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Development of Personal and Cultural Identities

2015· other· en· W1521935580 on OpenAlexaff
Michael J. Chandler, William L. Dunlop

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDichotomyDilemmaIndigenousSociologyContext (archaeology)EpistemologySet (abstract data type)DisciplineEnvironmental ethicsSocial scienceHistoryPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This chapter is about dualisms: dualisms in general, and, more particularly, about those dichotomies of thought that set selves apart from society, and conceptually isolate individuals from their communities. Because these familiar cleavages between persons and collectives can only be understood in the context of centuries’ worth of commitments to substance dualisms more generally, the chapter begins with an introductory detour through earlier crash‐sites of contested claims about the alleged vices and virtues of dualistic thought more generally. It is obviously not enough, however, to simply document and bemoan the isolationist tactics common to most anthropologies, psychologies, and sociologies, as each (with its own unique and nonoverlapping units of analysis) continues to pass one another like proverbial ships in the night. Rather, it is argued, a promising first step out of this doctrinaire dilemma gets its footing by treading on common concepts that already exist at the margins of those paradigms governing such usual disciplinary divides. The concepts of personal and cultural continuity are offered up as provisional examples of such shared constructs, and are enlisted in the service in a post‐Durkheimian account of differential suicide rates in Indigenous and non‐Indigenous cultures.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.146
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207