Cross‐cultural comparison of political leaders' operational codes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims at comparing operational codes (namely, philosophical and instrumental beliefs about the political universe) of political leaders from different cultures. According to Schwartz (2004), cultures can be categorised into 3 dimensions: autonomy-embeddedness, egalitarianism-hierarchy and mastery-harmony. This study draws upon the 1st dimension (akin to the most popular cultural dimension of Hofstede: individualism-collectivism) and focuses on comparing the leaders of autonomous and embedded cultures based on how cooperative/conflictual they are. The main research hypothesis is as follows: the leaders of embedded cultures would be more cooperative than the leaders of autonomous cultures. For this purpose, 3 autonomous cultures (the UK, Canada and Australia) and embedded cultures (Singapore, South Africa and Malaysia) cultures were chosen randomly and the cooperativeness of the correspondent countries' leaders were compared after being profiled by Profiler Plus. The results indicated that the leaders of embedded cultures were significantly more cooperative than autonomous cultures after holding the control variables constant. The findings were discussed in the light of relevant literature.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".