MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014558297 · doi:10.1108/00483480510571879

Cross‐cultural training to facilitate expatriate adjustment: it works!

2005· article· en· W2014558297 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

VenuePersonnel Review · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Student and Expatriate Challenges
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExpatriateModerationOriginalityGermanSample (material)PsychologyValue (mathematics)Cross-culturalBusinessSocial psychologySociologyPolitical scienceHistoryStatisticsMathematicsLawAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The paper examines what are the effects of the different types of cross‐cultural training (CCT) on expatriates' adjustment and whether prior international experience (IE) and cultural distance (CD) have a moderator effect on the effectiveness of CCT. Design/methodology/approach In a quantitative approach the paper examines the effect of four different types of CCT on the three facets of expatriates' adjustment, on a sample consisting of 54 French, 53 German, 60 Korean and 57 Scandinavian managers expatriated to India. The paper then examines the moderator effect of IE and of CD on CCT's effectiveness. Findings CCT accelerates expatriates’ adjustment. The type of CCT received matters. IE and CD have a moderator effect. Practical implications Implications for practice are identified. Originality/value The paper demonstrated the effectiveness of different kinds of CCT and the moderator effects of IE and CD.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.875
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.197
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.213 · 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