Comparisons of Daily Behavior Across 21 Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While a large body of research has investigated cultural differences in behavior, this typical study assesses a single behavioral outcome, in a single context, compared across two countries. The current study compared a broad array of behaviors across 21 countries ( N = 5,522). Participants described their behavior at 7:00 p.m. the previous evening using the 68 items of the Riverside Behavioral Q-sort (RBQ). Correlations between average patterns of behavior in each country ranged from r = .69 to r = .97 and, in general, described a positive and relaxed activity. The most similar patterns were United States/Canada and least similar were Japan/United Arab Emirates (UAE). Similarities in behavior within countries were largest in Spain and smallest in the UAE. Further analyses correlated average RBQ item placements in each country with, among others, country-level value dimensions, personality traits, self-esteem levels, economic output, and population. Extroversion, openness, neuroticism, conscientiousness, self-esteem, happiness, and tolerant attitudes yielded more significant correlations than expected by chance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".