MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407119443

Characteristics of Cross-Cultural Communication

2011· article· en· W4407119443 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
T. Blyznyuk

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Student and Expatriate Challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been studied the Geer Hofstede’s model, where business-cultures are classified into five main cultural dimensions, which by-turn influence on the management style: 1) power distance (PDI); 2) individualism vs. collectivism (IDV); 3) masculinity vs. femininity (MAS); 4) weak vs. strong uncertainty avoidance (UAI); 5) long vs. short term orientation (LTO). According to the G. Hofstede’s theory results it has been found out that Rumanian, Bulgarian, Turkish, Mexican cultures are similar to Ukrainian. British, Austrian, Swedish, Jamaican and Danish cultures differ from our culture most of all.According to the Fons Trompenaars and Charles Hampden-Turner’s model business-cultures can be classified into the following factors: 1) power centralization level; 2) power formalization level; 3) object of the management. These characteristics allow to determine such models: "Incubator", "Guided missile", "The Eiffel Tower" and "Family". The most striking representatives of the model "Incubator" are the USA and Canada, the model "Guided missile" – Anglo-Saxon and East European countries. The model "Family" have countries in Asia, South America, Southwest Europe and countries of the former Soviet Union, it means, that Ukraine also has such a model. The model "The Eiffel Tower" is typical for Germany and countries in Central Europe.With the help of the cross-cultural matrix proposed for Ukraine, there have been worked out some practical guidelines for five groups of countries how to conduct negotiations with Ukrainian partners: 1) India, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Japan, China, Korea, Singapore, Russia, Poland, Rumania, Slovakia; 2) countries of Bulgaria, England, Ireland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Holland, the Czech Republic; 3) the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Turkey, Greece, Brazil, Mexico; 4) Australia, Canada, the USA; 5) France, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Hungary

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.430
GPT teacher head0.610
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicInternational Student and Expatriate ChallengesFrench-language works237,207