MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Intercultural Study of Personal Space: A Case Study

2004· article· en· W2113757117 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Social Psychology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersonal spacePsychologyInterpersonal communicationInterviewSocial psychologySpace (punctuation)Interpersonal relationshipFace (sociological concept)Cultural valuesSociologyGender studiesAnthropologySocial scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study of intercultural differences in personal space attempts to identify factors that could be helpful in guiding people from different cultures to live and work together in international ventures. The objective of this research was to measure interpersonal distance in a cross‐cultural environment. Twenty‐three participants classified in 4 cultural groups answered an 11‐questions interview where the personal distance and orientation between seated interactants were measured. Results showed that Anglo Saxons used the largest zone of personal space, followed by Asians, then Caucasians, and, as expected, Mediterraneans and Latinos used the shortest distance. Where Latinos adopt a face‐to‐face position, Caucasians tend to orient themselves to the side of the interviewer, which has an impact on interpersonal communication.

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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.298 · 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