Culture and Social Distance: A Case Study of Methodological Cautions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors presented, as a case study of methodological challenges in cross-cultural research, E. S. Bogardus's (1925) Social Distance Scale, which requires respondents to indicate the social distance between themselves and others. The meaningfulness of the scale depends on the assumption that respondents believe that the magnitude of social distance increases as one moves through the social categories of family member, friend, neighbor, coworker, and citizen. The authors tested this assumption for English Canadian, French Canadian, Jewish, Indian, Algerian, and Greek participants, all 1st-generation immigrants in Montreal. The participants rated their willingness to associate with members of each of the other ethnic groups in 5 social categories. The percentage of respondents in each sample whose data conformed to the prediction ranged from 63.7% to 98.0%, with English Canadian, French Canadian, and Jewish respondents providing responses most consistent with the predicted pattern. The Indian and Algerian respondents' data were the least consistent with the predicted pattern, especially when rating members of their own ethnic 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 | 0.194 | 0.321 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| 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".