MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099659194

Is Positive Information Less Well Received in Korea versus Canada? Cross-Cultural Comparisons

2014· article· en· W2099659194 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kim, Chang Soo, Jo, Myung-Soo

Bibliographic record

VenueKorean Journal of Marketing · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTechnology and Data Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInferenceContradictionDual (grammatical number)Political scienceComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceEpistemologyPhilosophyLinguistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

긍정적 정보는 항상 호의적 반응을 유발시켜왔다. 하지만, 긍정적 정보일지라도 긍정적 반응이 아닌 다른 반응이 나타날 수 있다. 특히 문화 차이(cultural differences)는 다양한 반응을 유발 시킬 것이다. 본 연구 결과에 따르면, 긍정적 정보에 대해 한국인은 캐다나인보다 높은 수준의 심리적 불편함을 경험하였다. 그 이유는 한국인들이 정보처리과정에서 상황중심의 추론 (situation-based inference)과 모순(laws of contradiction) 을 바탕으로 한 양면추론(dual inference)통해 긍정적 정보의 가치를 낮게 평가하여 수용하기 때문이다. 결과적으로 한국인은 긍정적 정보에 노출된 후, 제품에 대한 낮은 긍정적 태도를 보였으나, 캐나다인은 긍정적 태도가 강화되거나 변화하지(낮아지지) 않았다. 따라서 본 연구는 광고주에 대한 긍정적 정보를 강조하여 제공하는 비교광고가 동양에서 효과가 없었는지를 설명할 수 있다. 또한 긍정적 정보가 반드시 긍정적 결과를 유발시키지도 않을 수 있음을 제시한다.

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)0.012
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 score0.243
Threshold uncertainty score0.489

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKorean Journal of MarketingSame topicTechnology and Data AnalysisFrench-language works237,207