Racial/ethnic variations in the main and buffering effects of ethnic and nonethnic supports on depressive symptoms among five ethnic immigrant groups in Toronto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study examined variations in the main and buffering effects of ethnic and nonethnic social support on depressive symptoms associated with discrimination among five immigrant groups in Toronto. DESIGN: Data were taken from the Toronto Study of Settlement and Health, a cross-sectional survey of adult immigrants from five ethnic communities (Vietnamese, Ethiopian, Iranian, Korean, and Irish) in Toronto. A total of 900 surveys were collected through face-to-face interviews conducted between April and September 2001. RESULTS: Significant ethnic variations were observed in the effects of both ethnic and nonethnic social supports on discrimination-related depressive symptoms. Regarding the main effect, ethnic social support was significantly stronger for Iranian, Ethiopian, and Korean immigrants than for Irish immigrants. The benefits of nonethnic support were stronger for Iranian immigrants compared to the effect found in the Irish sample. With respect to stress-buffering or stress-moderating effects of social support, ethnic support was significant in all ethnic groups, except the Vietnamese group. Nonethnic support aggravated the negative impact of discrimination on depressive symptoms in the Irish group, but exerted a stress-buffering effect in the Iranian group. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, social supports received from fellow ethnic group members had significant main effects (suppressing depressive symptoms) and stress-buffering effects and were most pronounced in the minority ethnic immigrant groups of Ethiopians, Koreans, and Iranians. The effects were least evident among the Vietnamese and Irish. Evidence for the stress-suppressing and stress-buffering role of cross-ethnic group supports was unclear, and even inverted among Irish immigrants. Empirical evidence from the current study seems to support the sociocultural similarity hypothesis of social support.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".