MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074106052 · doi:10.2466/pr0.101.2.339-352

An Empirical Assessment of Generational Differences in Basic Human Values

2007· article· en· W2074106052 on OpenAlexaffabout
Seán Lyons, Linda Duxbury, Christopher P. Higgins

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Reports · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityCarleton UniversitySt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpenness to experienceGeneration yPsychologyGeneration xValue (mathematics)Baby boomersSocial psychologySample (material)Demographic economicsMarketingStatisticsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study assessed generational differences in human values as measured by the Schwartz Value Survey. It was proposed that the two most recent generations, Millennials and Generation Xers, would value Self-enhancement and Openness to Change more than the two older generations, Baby Boomers and Matures, while the two older generations would value Self-transcendence and Conservation more. The hypotheses were tested with a combined sample of Canadian knowledge workers and undergraduate business students (N = 1,194). Two hypotheses were largely supported, although an unexpectedly large difference was observed between Millennials and Generation Xers with respect to Openness to Change and Self-enhancement. The findings suggest that generation is a useful variable in examining differences in social values.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.248
GPT teacher head0.530
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations162
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological ReportsSame topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207