The Ecocultural Framework, Ecosocial Indices, and Psychological Variables in Cross-Cultural Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relationships between context variables (ecosocial indices) and psychological variables across different nations were investigated, guided by Berry’s Ecocultural Framework. The psychological variables were values (Hofstede; Inglehart; Schwartz; Smith, Dugan, and Trompenaars) and subjective well-being (Diener). The ecosocial indices of religion and affluence had separate and in some ways contrasting relationships with psychological variables. Some religions were related to higher interpersonal power, loyalty, and hierarchy, but lower affluence. Other religions, (particularly Protestantism) and higher affluence were related to intrapersonal aspects, such as individualism, utilitarian commitment, and well-being. The most important result was the finding that scores of psychological variables showed systematic relationships with cluster membership of countries on ecosocial indices. The study proposes a solution to a theoretical and methodological problem of current cross-cultural psychology: the search for cultural (context) variables that would explain similarities and differences in psychological variables in different clusters of countries.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".