MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Social axioms in Iran and Canada: Intercultural contact, coping and adjustment

2006· article· en· W2110122689 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Journal Of Social Psychology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmony (color)Coping (psychology)Social psychologyPsychologyAxiomImmigrationLife satisfactionSocial harmonySociologyClinical psychologySocial scienceGeographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A comparison was made between Iranian participants living in Iran, Iranian immigrants to Canada, and Canadian‐born participants on the Social Axioms Scale (SAS), including a sixth dimension, Harmony. The Iranian immigrants to Canada endorsed views that were intermediate between the other two groups. In the data from Iran, the relationships between social axioms on the one hand and measures of active coping and adjustment on the other were examined. Belief in Reward for Application predicted Active Coping; acknowledgment of Social Complexity predicted Life‐Satisfaction; and endorsement of belief in Harmony predicted Mastery. Those whose beliefs on Harmony and Social Complexity were closer to their country mean were higher on Mastery and Self‐Esteem, but those whose beliefs on Fate Control were closer to the country mean showed lower Life‐Satisfaction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.793
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.315 · 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