Replicating Hofstede in Jordan: Ungeneralized, Reevaluating the Jordanian Culture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hofstede was credited with completing the largest cross-cultural study applicable to international management theory and a review of the literature indicates that the dimensions identified by Hofstede capture the essence of many dimensions and value orientations proposed by other researchers. The effect of culture on people’s life is so great that it will even affects the motives and choices of people’s behavior. The aim of the study is to update the Hofstede cultural value dimensions. We argue that scores (findings) obtained by Hofstede in his previous studies conducted in Arab countries and then generalized to Jordanian culture are not scientifically valid. This study replicates Hofstede’s study with data obtained from students studying for their master degrees in different universities in Jordan. Throughout the history of studying national cultures, a number of researchers, through their intense investigation of cultures, explored different cultural frameworks. This paper begins by reviewing the literature on culture and cultural frameworks. In the section after that, a replication of Hofstede’s study was conducted and findings were obtained. The final section concludes with a discussion of findings, and why findings obtained differ from those found earlier by Hofstede himself in previous research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.071 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".