Schwartz Value Annotations on Cross-Population Work-Goal Responses (Indian, Asian, IJH, Ultra)

Annotated corpus of short free-text work-goal responses from four populations,labeled with Schwartz value categories. Companion data for the paper "LexicalRegister, Not Cultural Proximity: Cross-Population Generalization of SchwartzValue Classifiers" (under review; author names withheld for double-blindreview and will be updated here upon publication). ## Overview 2,699 annotated instances spanning four populations that vary along**cultural** (geography, religion, language community) and **organizational**(workplace, religious-educational, lay-survey) axes: | Label | Population description | N |--------|--------------------------------------------------------------|------| Indian | Employees from India (largest sample) | 1161 | Ultra | Female educators from the Israeli ultra-Orthodox community | 721 | IJH | Employees of an Israeli Jewish humanitarian nonprofit | 415 | Asian | Asian-American survey respondents | 402 The IJH and Ultra populations responded in Hebrew; their responses weretranslated to English via Google Translate with manual quality control priorto release. ## Elicitation Each respondent first completed an adapted Schwartz Values Survey (Schwartz,1992) and then wrote up to three short sentences describing their work goals.The work-goal sentences (median 3 words; range 2–5 words across populations)are what is annotated and distributed here. ## Annotation A team of four to six researchers trained in Schwartz value theory developed adetailed annotation guide. Each goal was independently coded by twoannotators using the 12-category coarse Schwartz scheme (SD, ST, HE, AC, PO,FA, SE, TR, CO, HU, BE, UN), and a curator resolved disagreements.Inter-annotator agreement on the dominant value ranges from 67% (Asian) to88% (Indian); 75% (IJH) and 83% (Ultra). ## Files - `merged.csv` — full corpus (2,699 rows). Columns: `Dataset`, `Text`, `Annotated Value`. ## Ethics All four studies were approved by the institutional ethics review board ofthe lead author's institution (committee details withheld for anonymousreview). Participation was voluntary, anonymous, and obtained with informedconsent. A two-annotator + curator review pass functioned as a screen forpersonally-identifying information; no such cases were flagged. Populationlabels in the released data are anonymized (e.g., the host organization forthe IJH population is referred to only by the IJH label). ## Recommended use Cross-population evaluation of value-detection classifiers, lexical-registerdiversity studies, and replication of the experiments in the companion paper.Practitioners deploying value classifiers cross-culturally should note theregister-driven mirror-image error patterns documented in the companionpaper. ## Citation Cite both this dataset (via its DOI) and the companion paper.