‘Should I or Should I Not’?: an exploration of South Asian youth's <i>resistance</i> to cultural deviancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Being and belonging to a South Asian family in Canada does not come without struggles. One theme that has consistently dominated the literature on South Asian immigrant families is the competing cultural value systems that exist between the East (heritage country) and the West (host country). The two cultural scripts adhere to contradictory lifestyle scripts, especially with respect to social and sexual aspects of life. In an individualistic host country, like Canada, things such as dating and sexuality are much more accepted and normalised. These same social endeavours in collectivistic South Asian cultures, where social controls such as family, culture, religion and community dominate decision-making, are stigmatised. In South Asian cultures, these activities are considered culturally deviant because they pose a direct threat to the honour of the family. Using semi-structured interviews, the goal of this study is twofold: first, to uncover the intimate relationship realities of South Asian youth; and second, to understand why some South Asian youth resist cultural deviancy by applying Travis Hirschi's Social Bond Theory. A quantitative and qualitative analysis of the data revealed four themes that help explain why some participants avoided dating relationships and/or sexual activities, which include attachment to others/affection, commitment to conventional lines of action, involvement in conventional activities, belief system and lack of opportunity.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".