Primacy of Personal over Cultural Attributes Demonstrating Receptiveness as a key to Effective Cross-national Interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Dubai-based study investigates local Emirati women’s attitudes to professional interactions with different nationalities. Its findings reveal that respondents’ perceptions of personal attributes play a stronger role in who they prefer to engage with in work-related interactions than markers of national, ethnic, cultural, or religious identity. Responses indicate that the presence or absence of displays of interactive receptiveness strongly impacts on willingness to engage or not with another individual. This suggests a fresh theme for business communication instructors, namely, training students to develop and demonstrate receptiveness in order to facilitate open and successful interactions. It supports the notion that business communication research should place greater emphasis on interpersonal, rather than specifically intercultural, skills. Key words: intercultural communication; interpersonal communication; receptiveness; cross-national working groups; Dubai Resume: Cette etude, basee a Dubai, mene des enquetes sur les femmes Emiraties locales face a des interactions professionnelles avec des gens de differentes nationalites. Ses conclusions revelent que chez les femmes interrogees, les attributs personnels jouent un role plus important dans leur choix d’engager des interactions liees au travail que les reperes nationaux, ethniques, culturels ou religieux. Les reponses indiquent que la presence ou l'absence de l'affichage de la receptivite interactive ont de forts impacts sur la volonte de s'engager ou non avec une autre personne. Cela suggere un nouveau theme pour les professeurs en communication d'entreprise, c’est a dire, ils peuvent former leurs etudiantsla de developper et de demontrer leur receptivite en vue de faciliter des interactions ouvertes et reussies. Il soutient l'idee que la recherche dans communication d'entreprise doit mettre davantage l'accent sur les relations interpersonnelles, plutot que specifiquement sur les relations interculturelle ou sur les competences. Mots-Cles: communication interculturelle; communication interpersonnelle; receptivite; groupe de travail transnational; Dubai
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".