Comparing self‐esteem discrepancies in Pakistan and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The cross‐cultural universality of people's pursuit of positive self‐esteem is frequently disputed. Most research in this area has contrasted cultures of dignity (Western) and face cultures (East Asian), but less attention has been given to other cultures' views of self‐esteem. In the present work, we examined Pakistan as uniquely influenced by honour culture and South Asian argumentation culture principles, and we contrasted it with Canada (a Western culture of dignity). Across two studies, Pakistanis had less positive self‐esteem discrepancies (i.e., Pakistanis had minimal or no desire for higher self‐esteem) compared to Canadians (who desired much higher self‐esteem than they actually had). Pakistanis also believed less in the agentic benefits of high self‐esteem but more in the communal benefits of high self‐esteem than did Canadians. Differences in each cultures' beliefs about self‐esteem's causal powers partially accounted for the differences in self‐esteem discrepancies. These findings suggest unique conceptualizations of the value of self‐esteem in distinct cultures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".