MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890144110 · doi:10.1002/ejsp.2544

Culture, psychological proximity to the past and future, and self‐continuity

2018· article· en· W2890144110 on OpenAlex
Li‐Jun Ji, Emily Hong, Tieyuan Guo, Zhiyong Zhang, Yanjie Su, Ye Li

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Social Psychology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsClosenessPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The present research explores how culture influences individuals’ psychological proximity to the past and future, which may predict differences in perceived self‐continuity across time. In Studies 1 and 2, we hypothesized and found that Chinese participants saw the past and future as more connected and subjectively closer to the present compared to Euro‐Canadians. Following this, we expected and found in Studies 3 and 4 that Chinese participants perceived greater self‐continuity over time than Euro‐Canadians. Additionally, perceived closeness to the past mediated the effect of culture on past–present self‐continuity, which subsequently predicted present–future self‐continuity. Study 5 further documented a causal effect of perceived distance to the past on self‐continuity. These results suggest that cultural differences in temporal attention to the past and future play a pivotal role in people's sense of self‐continuity across time. This has important implications for temporal focalism, intertemporal discounting, and social interactions between Chinese and Euro‐Canadians.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.638
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.318 · 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