MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3160771515 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/qmtn6

Culture and Epistemically Suspect Beliefs

2020· preprint· en· W3160771515 on OpenAlexaff
Yoshimasa Majima, Alexander C. Walker, Martin Harry Turpin, Jonathan A. Fugelsang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuspectCausality (physics)PsychologyAssociation (psychology)Social psychologyEpistemologyPhilosophyCriminology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study explores various individual difference factors known to predict epistemically suspect beliefs across Western and Eastern cultures. While Western individuals scoring higher on measures of analytic thinking endorsed less epistemically suspect beliefs, this association was not observed in our Japanese samples, suggesting that the often observed negative association between analytic thinking and epistemically suspect beliefs may be exclusive to Western samples. Additionally, we demonstrate that a tendency to think holistically (specifically with regards to causality) was positively associated with the endorsement of epistemically suspect beliefs, both within Western and Eastern samples.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.610
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207