Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the influence of culture on coping has been implicated conceptually in the stress-coping literature for sometime, empirical research on cross-cultural coping has gained momentum only recently. The past two decades witnessed a significant growth in the research and the knowledge base of culture and coping, as well as an increased call by scholars for more culturally and contextually informed stress-coping paradigms. In view of this critical development, the present article intends to systematically review and take stock of the theoretical and empirical knowledge that has emerged from the cumulative cultural coping research. Specifically, this corpus of literature was summarized and analyzed in terms of (a) theoretical propositions, (b) empirical studies on cross-cultural coping variations, (c) cultural dimensions of coping, and (d) implications for future research. The results evidenced culture’s consequences on coping with respect to the identification of conceptual pathways through which culture affects stresscoping; cultural differences and specificities in coping patterns across national, ethnic, and racial groups; and the differential effects of acculturation, self-construals, and individualism-collectivism on coping. Conceptual and methodological recommendations are offered for future research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".