MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914447471 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.49.1.21

When a Family Member is Ill: Implications for Prosocial Behavior Across Cultures

2018· article· en· W2914447471 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sang‐Yeon Kim, Emily Cramer, Tae‐Seop Lim, Hayeon Song, Seokhoon Ahn, Jihyun Kim, Hyun Joo Kim, Jung‐Hyun Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterdependenceSocial psychologyPsychologyProsocial behaviorContext (archaeology)ConstrualsConstrual level theorySelf construalFlexibility (engineering)SociologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extant research has yet to uncover whether cultural differences exist in reactions to family member illness and how observed differences may be explained theoretically. The current project examines the impact of cultural worldview on health assessment and behavior—using inclusive measures capturing a range of health promoting activities—when a family member is ill. Following two phases of study, grounded in Markus and Kitayama’s (1991) conjectures about self-construal and culture, results point to a relationship of interdependent construals of self and helping behavior as a form of health promotion in the context of a family illness. In light of research emphasizing the role of culture in motivating altruistic and relationship concerns, we propose two mechanisms through which the relationship among interdependent self-construal, family illness, and prosocial behavior can be explained.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.431
GPT teacher head0.555
Teacher spread0.124 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Family StudiesSame topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207