MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2323024741 · doi:10.1177/0022022115611749

Toward a Psychological Atlas of the World With Mixture Modeling

2015· article· en· W2323024741 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lazar Stankov, Jihyun Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cross-Cultural Psychology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConservatismReligiosityGross domestic productPer capitaWorld Values SurveyStructural equation modelingLatin AmericansLiberalismChinaDevelopment economicsTest (biology)Political sciencePsychologySocial psychologyDemographyEconomic growthSociologyEconomicsLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents findings based on the outcomes of research conducted with 8,883 participants from 33 countries. It employs mixture modeling (latent profile analysis) to classify countries into latent classes. The country-level analyses are based on three social attitudes factor scores of Nastiness, Religiosity, and Morality. The results indicate that the main sources of cross-cultural differences are with respect to a broadly defined Conservatism/Liberalism. Three groups of societies—that is, “psychological continents”—appear to exist in the world today. They are as follows: (a) liberal European countries plus Canada and Australia; (b) conservative countries from South and South-East Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America; and (c) all other countries, including the United States, Russia, and China, that are in between liberal and conservative groups. In addition, gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, cognitive test performance, and governance indicators were found to be low in the most conservative group and high in the most liberal group.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.427
Threshold uncertainty score0.556

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.264
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations27
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cross-Cultural PsychologySame topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207