MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4230426274 · doi:10.5539/ies.v2n4p25

Stereotypes Communication

2009· article· en· W4230426274 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation, Sociology, Communication Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntercultural communicationPsychologySocial psychologyCommunication studiesSocial communicationInterpersonal communicationSociologyPedagogySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We live in a world, which is becoming a Global Village in which information and communication attract people’s attention more than ever before. Our desire to communicate with strangers and our relationships with them depend on the degree to which we are effective in communicating with them. There are so many factors restricting or improving people’s communication. This essay gives an analysis based on one factor called stereotypes. In intercultural research, the influence of stereotypes on people’s behaviors in communication is a very important issue to take into account. This paper aims to illustrate stereotypes from the aspects of their social and psychological perspectives, great influence on people’s communication, the problems they may cause, and some solutions.

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)0.004
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.806
Threshold uncertainty score0.822

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.243
GPT teacher head0.558
Teacher spread0.315 · 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