MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110762178 · doi:10.1177/0022022104268386

The Role of Culture in Interpersonal Relationships

2004· article· en· W2110762178 on OpenAlexaff
Richard N. Lalonde, Michaela Hynie, Manjit Pannu, Sandeep Tatla

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cross-Cultural Psychology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial psychologyPsychologyInterdependenceInterpersonal relationshipPreferenceInterpersonal communicationIdentity (music)Cultural identityImmigrationSociologyGeographyMathematicsAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two studies examined the influence of Eastern cultural heritage on relationship preferences among second generation immigrants to the West, and explicitly tested the mediating roles of interdependence and familial cultural influence in mate preferences. The first used a between-subjects approach to compare the preferred mate attributes of South Asian Canadians (n= 97) to those of Euro-Canadians (n= 89). The second study used a within-subject approach by using the strength of cultural identity of South Asian Canadians (n= 92) as a predictor of preferred attributes. Both studies found a culture influence on “traditional” mate attribute preferences. Moreover, familial cultural influence (e.g., family allocentrism) was a better mediator of the culture-traditional attribute preference relationship than the more generic measure of interdependent self-construal. The results further suggest that a cross-cultural approach, rather than a strength-of-culturalidentity approach, is better suited to tap into non-conscious influences of culture on behavior.

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)0.008
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.366 · 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

Citations107
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cross-Cultural PsychologySame topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207