MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2948839370 · doi:10.55016/ojs/jet.v43i3.52293

Cognitive Dissonance: A Comprehensive Review Amongst Interdependent and Independent Cultures

2018· review· en· W2948839370 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of educational thought. · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive dissonanceInterdependencePsychologyCognitionSocial psychologyCognitive psychologySelf-perception theorySociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Festinger postulated that within each person's mind is a mechanism that creates an uncomfortable feeling of dissonance, or lack of harmony, when we become aware of some inconsistency among various attitudes, beliefs, and items of knowledge that constitute our mental store. Festinger called this phenomenon the cognitive dissonance theory. Another facet of social psychology that has been studied at great length is the cross-cultural differences between North American culture and East Asian culture.Specifically, East Asian culture and North American culture has been associated with interdependent culture and independent culture, respectively. In the past decade, social psychologists have begun to investigate dissonance theory with respect to crosscultural differences. As classrooms become ethnically, racially, and culturally increasingly diverse, educators must be aware of cognitive dissonance in contrasting cultures to foster optimal achievement.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.342 · 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