MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Money Attitudes Among Iranians: A Test of Yamauchi and Templer’s Money Attitudes Scale

2016· article· W7138968453 on OpenAlexaff
Amirreza Talaei, Catherine T. Kwantes

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage arts journal of Michigan · 2016
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmic and eticDistrustScale (ratio)Test (biology)Dimension (graph theory)Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The factor structure of Yamauchi and Templer’s (1982) attitudes toward money scale was explored in Iran. While some items loaded on the same factors as found in western contexts, some unique factors were also found, reflecting particular cultural and economic impacts on money attitudes in Iran. Both etic and emic factors emerged. Saving was the only factor that emerged with the original scale items found in western cultures. Two of the original Anxiety items loaded onto a single factor, labelled Bargain-Conscious consistent with a small number of previous studies. Some of the Anxiety and Distrust items together loaded on the same factor in this research, as has been found in some existing studies in non-western cultures. Three sub-dimensions of Power were found in this sample, as opposed to one major Power dimension in the original scale, which may reflect specific contextual factors. Further, and contrary to previous findings, no significant correlations were found between any of the scale factors and gender, age, education, job level or salary.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLanguage arts journal of MichiganSame topicSocial and Intergroup PsychologyFrench-language works237,207