Affective meanings of stereotyped social groups in cross-cultural comparison
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper compares affective meanings of various stereotyped social groups in U.S., German, and Japanese cultures along the three basic dimensions of emotional experience (evaluation, potency, and activity). Analyses exploring similarities in affective meanings between respondents revealed considerable consensus within cultures, but less across cultures. These analyses indicated greater consensus for the U.S. and German sample than for the Japanese sample, supporting past research which indicates that Japanese social perception is more contextualized than in Western cultures. Analyses of cross-cultural differences also identified meaningful patterns of culture-specific deviation, interpretable in terms of the placement of each national sample on cultural dimensions such as power distance, masculinity, and individualism/collectivism. We argue that affective meanings reflect the social order of specific cultures, making variations in consensus significant as affective meanings guide intergroup behavior and emotion.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it