MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040011099 · doi:10.5539/ass.v6n12p97

The Far Side: Contrasting American and South Korean Cultural Contexts

2010· article· en· W2040011099 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Scott Lincoln

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPsychosocial Factors Impacting Youth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobeContext (archaeology)Convergence (economics)Cultural diversityCultural valuesPolitical scienceSociologyPolitical economyDevelopment economicsSocial scienceEconomic growthPsychologyGeographyAnthropologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cultural contexts of South Korea and the United States are vastly different in many ways. The purpose of this study is to examine the origins of these differences, the implications on the present-day societies, and to try to determine any trends for the future. The differing philosophies upon which each society was founded have caused Korea to become an exceptionally high-context society, while the United States represents a significantly lower-context society. While the GLOBE Study results for these countries confirm much of what we would expect of low- and high-context societies, this study concludes that the results indicate that South Koreans seem to be ready to cast off some of their traditional ways and embrace a more egalitarian society, and that the two cultures' acceptance of similar idealized cultural values will lead to a gradual convergence of even such drastically divergent cultures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicPsychosocial Factors Impacting YouthFrench-language works237,207