Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Although Australia and English Canada share common British colonial origins, they have not evolved into identical cultures. This is likely because they do not share an identical pattern of cultural values. Research has shown that, while common values certainly exist, each nation's dominant values are neither identical for all values nor are specific common values necessarily shared to the same degree. The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast seven key values studies and considers their managerial implications. Design/methodology/approach This review of comparative values studies helps identify, through analysis and comparison with other cultures, subtle differences between Australian and Canadian cultural values. Findings Distinct Australian and Canadian value profiles emerge when each culture is contrasted with other, especially Anglo‐based, cultures. However, the studies in this review do not explore in great detail how such values became prominent cultural markers. This review therefore suggests that the impact of Anglo‐Celtic immigrants during each nation's formative periods may be a primary underlying cause that deserves further study. Research limitations/implications The studies rely on various value scales to identify cultural similarities and differences. Such studies are cross‐sectional and do not analyze the results from a longitudinal or historical perspective. Nonetheless, reviewing these values studies contributes to the understanding of contemporary Australia, English Canada, and their respective managerial cultures. This review does not examine French Canadian values studies because of this analysis' focus on Anglo cultures to determine distinctions among dominant values and to suggest reasons for differences among those sharing a common British colonial heritage. Practical implications This review informs practicing managers in Australia, Canada, and others considering entering these cultures, which values haven proven culturally important and how local values could impact managerial decision‐making behavior. Originality/value Given a lack of research directly comparing Australian and Canadian cultural and/or managerial values, this review of significant comparative values studies helps identify distinctions worthy of further investigation. The critical discussion considers limitations of the current literature, as well as areas for future research that include ethno‐cultural factors in organizational research that are important for domestic enterprises and multinational corporations entering each market.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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 teacher head, 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".