MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147149783 · doi:10.1177/01461672002612011

Culture and Positive Illusions in Close Relationships: How My Relationships Are Better than Yours

2000· article· en· W2147149783 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

VenuePersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySocial psychologyBelongingnessRomanceSelf-enhancementFunction (biology)Uncorrelated

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although routinely observed among North Americans, self-enhancing biases have been elusive in studies conducted with Japanese. The authors conducted two studies of relationship-serving biases (RSBs) with Japanese, Asian Canadian, and European Canadian participants. In both studies, members of all three cultural groups viewed their own relationships (with their best friend, their closest family member, and their romantic partner) as more positive than those of their peers, and to roughly the same extent. Of importance, however, (a) RSBs were largely uncorrelated with both self-esteem and self-serving biases and (b) Japanese (but not the other two cultural groups’) RSBs were paralleled by tendencies to view their relationship partners more positively than themselves. The authors suggest that relationship enhancement serves a different function than self-enhancement, aiding the individual’s quest for connection and belongingness with others.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.249 · 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