MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057076164 · doi:10.1177/0095399702034002003

Cultural Malleability in an East Asian Context

2002· article· en· W2057076164 on OpenAlexaff
Ji Li, Leonard Karakowsky

Bibliographic record

VenueAdministration & Society · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocioeconomic Development in Asia
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalleabilityHofstede's cultural dimensions theoryCultural diversityContext (archaeology)Construct (python library)Government (linguistics)Organizational cultureAffect (linguistics)Political scienceSociologyPublic relationsSocial scienceGeographyAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research in cross-cultural management and cultural diversity has often implicitly viewed national culture as a stable, enduring characteristic that can affect individual and organizational behavior. This article draws attention to the utility of considering national culture as a malleable rather than a fixed construct. Based on this conception of national culture, the authors examine the potential impact of culture and cultural change on business strategy. This examination is based on observations of differential business strategy employed among firms in Singapore compared to firms in Hong Kong and Taiwan. These differences, viewed as a reflection of cultural differences, suggest that significant partial changes in national culture can occur in a relatively short period of time. Although much of the previous literature has emphasized the factors of socioeconomic development and technological advancement as sources of influence on cultural change, this article considers the influence of government policies on national culture and business behaviors.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations41
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdministration & SocietySame topicSocioeconomic Development in AsiaFrench-language works237,207