MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036666382 · doi:10.7202/1015406ar

Towards a Comprehensive Procedure for Developing Measurement Scales for Cross-Cultural Management Research

2013· article· en· W2036666382 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marco Caramelli, Fons J. R. van de Vijver

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement international · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultinational corporationConfirmatory factor analysisAdaptation (eye)Test (biology)PsychologyStatistical hypothesis testingComputer scienceKnowledge managementBusinessStatisticsStructural equation modelingMathematicsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A procedure for developing and testing measurement scales for use in cross-cultural comparative management research is described. The procedure emphasizes the combination of adequate instrument design if a new instrument is used or adequate adaptation procedures if working with an existing instrument and state-of-the-art statistical analyses (notably multigroup confirmatory factor analysis) to test the adequacy of the scales in all groups. The procedure is illustrated in a study of competitive orientation among French, Mexican, US and Italian employees of multinational corporations.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.616
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.360
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.134 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement internationalSame topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207