MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2619563228

Failure to Learn from Cross-Cultural Interaction: Lessons from a Simulation Model of the Greenland Norse Colony

2006· book-chapter· en· W2619563228 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kristjan Ambroz, Camilo Olaya

Bibliographic record

VenueDuncker & Humblot eBooks · 2006
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicComplex Systems and Decision Making
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCross-culturalAdaptation (eye)Extinction (optical mineralogy)GeographyPsychologySociologyAnthropologyChemistry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this paper is to examine the value of cross-cultural interaction and the consequences of the lack thereof. To accomplish this task the interaction of two older cultures is examined namely the Greenland Norse and the Greenland Inuit. Failure to cooperate drove the former to extinction, while the latter managed to survive in the same environment for a lot longer and showed a very cooperative attitude to other cultures that they encountered. With the help of computer simulation valuable lessons for intercultural contexts in organizations and societies in general are extracted and shown from this case. These adhere to the prominence of principles such as adaptation and collective intelligence. Refusal to learn by interaction - in order to overcome dysfunctional reinforcing cycles - is the key to understanding the failure of the Norse.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.197

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.211
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDuncker & Humblot eBooksSame topicComplex Systems and Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207