MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1564417931

A Critical Review of Epistemological and Methodological Issues in Cross-Cultural Research

2004· review· en· W1564417931 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Hamid Yeganeh, Zhan Su, Elie Chrysostome

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative International Management · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MonctonUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtant taxonEpistemologySociologyManagement sciencePhilosophyEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cross-cultural management research suffers from many shortcomings. While some of these shortcomings are related to methodology, others can be identified as epistemological problems. By recognizing that epistemological positions determine methodological approaches, this paper attempts to discuss both epistemological and methodological issues in cross-cultural research. Based on extant literature, major drawbacks are discussed and some suggestions for future research are presented.

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

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0120.016
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.772
GPT teacher head0.698
Teacher spread0.074 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations30
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative International ManagementSame topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207