MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2345451798 · doi:10.14365/ibj.2015.26.2.6

Must-Have Items: A Position-Oriented Product is More Appealing in Korea than Canada

2015· article· en· W2345451798 on OpenAlex
Chang Soo Kim, Insik Jeong

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPosition (finance)Product (mathematics)BusinessComputer scienceMathematicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study demonstrates position-oriented effects associated with products (e.g., products and their appeal) in Korea and Canada. Given that Koreans tend to focus on a vertical “pecking order” hierarchy and position-extended thinking via Confucianism, they are likely to consider their own position when purchasing products. In particular, Koreans tend to presume a relationship between their individual position and a product. This presumption concerning position-oriented products influences their beliefs toward superiors’ product ownership, leading Koreans (as opposed to Canadians) to have a higher level of positive attitude toward products related to people in superior positions. In contrast, Canadians tend to show less sensitivity toward the same position-oriented products. Furthermore, Koreans tend to display more positive reactions than Canadians with respect to the appeal of position-oriented luxury products (e.g., a chairman’s watch). Finally, this study suggests practical and academic 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.

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 score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score0.919

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.287 · 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