Cross Cultural Dimensions of Cultural Capital: A Comparison Between Greece and Turkey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this research, cross cultural dimensions between two ancient societies, Greece and Turkey have been examined and compared. In addition, West and Anatolia were also compared based on selected cross cultural dimensions. Cross cultural dimensions were evaluated in 11 factors: Education, Political Trust, Voluntary Work, Political Participation, Life Satisfaction Component, and Trust in People, Fear of Others, Life Satisfaction, Happiness, Income and Deprivation Index. In the research, a rhetorical analysis was also performed based on interviews with selected organizations in Greece and Turkey. According to results of the research, all 11 factors of cross cultural dimension were statistically significant between two countries (p<.05). Education levels were higher in Greece. Turkish people trust more political institutions. Greek people were less volunteering for community and social services. Political participation was higher in Turkish participants. Greek participants were more satisfied with education, accommodation, health and social life. Greek participants had less trust to other people. Life satisfaction level was higher in Turkish participants. Happiness levels of Greek participants were also lower. Income levels of Greek participants were lower, where deprivation index was higher in Turkish participants.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".