The Structure of Cultural Orientations to the Good Life and their Expression in Personal Narratives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the rational and ethical sense that people make of their actions and experiences requires understanding the lives they are trying to live. The narrative visions of a good life that are dominant in a society thus represent an important aspect of cultural orientation. To gain insight into the form and function of these visions, two studies were conducted. In Study 1, the various criteria by which people judge their lives as good or worthy were examined using multidimensional scaling of responses from four different cultural groups of students: Chinese, East Asian Canadian, South Asian Canadian, and Western European Canadian. The results revealed two underlying structural dimensions on which both criteria and cultural groups could be differentiated. One reflected the locus of criterial goods and the other their morality. The clearest cultural contrast was between Chinese participants, who tended toward the prudential, materialistic, and hedonistic pole of the morality dimension, and South Asians, who tended more toward the spirituality and beneficence pole. In Study 2, the content of personal narratives produced by Chinese and South Asian students was analyzed to examine whether their contrasting orientations to the good life would be reflected in the kinds of life experiences they recounted. Some evidence of correspondence in this regard was found.
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 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".