Cultural Form of Manifestation of Value Models in the Interaction of Personal Values and Social Structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Value models in society are often positioned as key factors in the formation of interpersonal interaction. In this regard, the process of forming a value model should be considered based on the pattern of social interaction. In cultural studies, as in other socio-humanities, such an internal branch of knowledge as cultural axiology was also formed. In general, cultural axiology is correlated with the implementation of the value approach as a general scientific approach. However, in cultural studies, this approach has its own specifics. The use of a value-based approach in cultural studies allows highlighting the inner side of the relationship between an individual and society. The scientific novelty of the study is determined by the structural content of the formation of values and their correlation with the practical values of the development of the social system. The authors show that the main importance is achieved through the interaction between the paradigm of social development and the expectations of the population in the process of spreading state or public ideology. The paper defines that the main goal remains to determine the possibility of adapting the social value model and the global cultural paradigm. The practical significance of the study is determined by the need to adapt post-structural social development and mitigate the transformation of the paradigm of social development in crisis socio-political periods.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".