MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129141058 · doi:10.1080/00223891.2013.775138

Comparability of the Social Behavior Inventory in English and Dutch

2013· article· en· W2129141058 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marije aan het Rot, Koen Hogenelst, D. S. Moskowitz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personality Assessment · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySocial psychologyComparabilityDominance (genetics)AgreeablenessInterpersonal communicationPersonalityBig Five personality traits

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Social Behavior Inventory (SBI) assesses social behaviors along the 2 orthogonal axes defining the interpersonal circumplex; that is, in terms of quarrelsomeness-agreeableness and dominance-submissiveness. To contribute to evidence evaluating the cross-cultural construct validity of the SBI, we investigated whether there are differences in how English-speaking students living in Canada and Dutch-speaking students living in The Netherlands view the SBI items. Results suggested there is similarity in the meaning of the items in the 2 cultures. The location of the original English SBI items on the 2 axes of the interpersonal circumplex was generally as expected. Similar results were found for a Dutch translation of the SBI. Differences occurred primarily along the dominance-submissiveness axis and could be explained by cultural differences in men's focus on power.

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)0.010
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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.355 · 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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Personality AssessmentSame topicSocial and Intergroup PsychologyFrench-language works237,207