MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048104220 · doi:10.1037/1099-9809.8.4.396

Comparison of Egyptian and Canadian children on a picture apperception test.

2002· article· en· W2048104220 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anastasia Barbopoulos, Fatmah Fisharah, James M. Clark, Ali El-Khatib

Bibliographic record

VenueCultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WinnipegManitoba HealthUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyApperceptionCollectivismDevelopmental psychologyTest (biology)AutonomyPersonalityAnxietyCross-culturalAggressionClinical psychologyIndividualismSocial psychologyPsychiatryCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Individualism-collectivism theory predicted that Egyptian and Canadian children's performance would differ on relevant scales of the Roberts Apperception Test for Children (RATC). The RATC was administered to 34 Egyptian and 34 Canadian children ages 6-13 years. Canadian children scored higher on autonomy and lower on receiving support from others and parental limit setting. At older ages, Egyptian children manifested less rejection, desire for help from others, and aggression. There were no cultural differences in anxiety or depression and few differences on indicator and resolution scales related to understanding the task and resolving problems. The findings validated cross-cultural use of the RATC and demonstrated that the increasingly general theory of collectivism allowed meaningful predictions about personality and clinical traits.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority PsychologySame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207