MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147751949 · doi:10.1177/1470595808091787

Cultural Intelligence

2008· article· en· W2147751949 on OpenAlexaff
David C. Thomas, Efrat Elron, Günter K. Stahl, Bjørn Z. Ekelund, Elizabeth C. Ravlin, Jean‐Luc Cerdin, Steven Poelmans, Richard W. Brislin, Andre Pekerti, Zeynep Aycan, Martha L. Maznevski, Kevin Au, Mila Lazarova

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Cross Cultural Management · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Student and Expatriate Challenges
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConceptualizationOperationalizationConstruct (python library)Cultural intelligencePsychologyEpistemologySociologySocial psychologyCognitive scienceKnowledge managementComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The construct of cultural intelligence, recently introduced to the management literature, has enormous potential in helping to explain effectiveness in cross cultural interactions. However, at present, no generally accepted definition or operationalization of this nascent construct exists. In this article, we develop a conceptualization of cultural intelligence that addresses a number of important limitations of previous definitions. We present a concise definition of cultural intelligence as a system of interacting abilities, describe how these elements interact to produce culturally intelligent behavior, and then identify measurement implications.

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)0.003
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations503
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Cross Cultural ManagementSame topicInternational Student and Expatriate ChallengesFrench-language works237,207