A cross-cultural comparison of pressures to switch left-hand writing: Brazil versus Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attempts to switch left-hand preferences towards the right side are socialisation practices found in many countries (Perelle & Ehrman, 1994). Although researchers acknowledge that pressures against left-hand use contribute to the cross-cultural fluctuations in the prevalence of left- versus right-hand preference, there has been little systematic cross-cultural study of how these pressures are applied, and who are the major agents applying the pressures to change. Our study explored specific rightward conversion practices and the results of these practices among individuals from two countries. One sample of participants was from a culture categorised as formal, Brazil, and the second sample was from Canada, a nonformal culture (Hofstede, 2001). Researchers have argued that prevalence rates of right-handedness should be higher in cultures that value conformity, called formal cultures, and lower among members of nonformal cultures where conformity pressures are lax (Medland, Perelle, De Monte, & Ehrman, 2004). The socialisation practices used to foster a change from the left to the right side are also predicted to differ in frequency and in kind in formal versus nonformal cultural settings. These cultural differences are assumed to result in differences in success rates of the conversion attempts, with formal cultures producing higher numbers of successfully converted right-handers. Our findings indicate that the formal versus nonformal cultural explanation for cross-cultural fluctuations in the prevalence of hand preference types does not account for the characteristics of the rightward conversion experiences reported by participants in the two groups. We propose that hypotheses concerning the effects of cultural differences on hand preference formation be expanded to include possible biological or genetic variance between groups.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".