MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987469653 · doi:10.1177/1069397103257895

Cultural Complexity Revisited

2004· article· en· W1987469653 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCross-Cultural Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCategorization, perception, and language
Canadian institutionsBrandon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstruct (python library)Set (abstract data type)Subject (documents)SociologyEpistemologyComputer sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cultural complexity has been defined in at least two different ways. First, Murdock and Provost conceptualized cultural complexity not as a single construct but rather as a set of constructs by which societies may be distinguished along the lines of known developmental sequences. Second, many anthropologists have conceptualized cultural complexity as a single construct along the lines of Spencerian differentiation/interdependence or (more loosely) as cultural heterogeneity. Chick made several criticisms of past treatments of cultural complexity but, nevertheless, assumed cultural complexity to be a single construct. In the present article, the approach of Murdock is reasserted. With this approach, Chick’s criticisms disappear. It is shown why the subject area traditionally thought of as cultural complexity has so many impacts on other parts of culture.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.790
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.006

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 head0.237
GPT teacher head0.542
Teacher spread0.305 · 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