Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is about the domestic culture of a vanishing generation – Canadian exile-Estonians – and its role in their national identity.The refugees’ adaptation process and community sustainability are supported and influenced by material culture and visual representations: the familiar objects from earlier times that have a symbolic meaning for them. Even random items, which were brought along accidentally, have developed a deeper meaning. The unique language of these objects helps the refugees to overcome difficult cultural dilemmas and maintain their individual and collective identities. The strategies that helped to design the appropriate domestic and cultural environment were used in order to survive the first years in exile; later on the new environment became self-evident.The refugees of older generations find it important that their descendants preserve the Estonian cultural identity. The domestic environment is seen as the most important component in preserving culture because home is the centre of our spatial world and home design is significant from the point of view of cultural identity. Social networking with compeers outside the domestic environment is not less important. The ones living apart and communicating less with other Estonians assimilate into the new culture more easily. Exposing Estonian items in home design is individual – some refugees are proud of their heritage, some are not. Depending on that, it is different how many Estonian items can be found in one’s home. As the informants belonged to the active Estonian community, emphasising Estonian cultural identity was clearly perceivable. In discussions with the informants it appeared that not in all Estonian households the heritage was proudly presented. In domestic environment some refer to their heritage as an important part of their lives, for others, being an Estonian is something marginal and just a part of their past.Despite the efforts of the older generation to preserve Estonian culture in Canada as it is being remembered from the childhood when they lived in Estonia, the process of acculturation is under way.This research supports the two-dimensional acculturation model, which says that a human being can belong into two or several cultures, whereas the strengthening of the affiliating one does not weaken other affiliations. The informants have preserved features of Estonian culture in their homes, and Canadian culture is being treated with the same respect. Canadian-Estonians’ material culture in domestic environment is unique as it is being influenced by a multitude of factors. Estonian features are disappearing or other aspects are becoming more important when presenting the Estonian heritage within every new generation. The main reason for it is selective memory, which shapes the descendants’ cultural identity and exile culture.Home reflects and shapes cultural identity. From one point of view, we design the environment surrounding us, but from another, the environment surrounding us designs ourselves. The more we live in certain environment conditions, the more the values represented in that environment entrench themselves. For that reason, parents are the designers of Estonian cultural identity, presenting Estonia and Estonian culture to their children and influencing the development of Estonian culture in Canada.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.004 |
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".