MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022126681 · doi:10.1080/14927713.2007.9651373

Transracial adoptees: A new frontier in ethnicity and leisure research

2007· article· en· W2022126681 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Peter A. Morden, Robert Hopp

Bibliographic record

VenueLeisure/Loisir · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnic groupFrontierImmigrationIdentity (music)Context (archaeology)Race (biology)SociologyGender studiesPsychologyPolitical scienceGeographyAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the treatment of race and ethnicity within the leisure literature and introduces an added layer of complexity to this literature through an examination of transracial adoptions. Of particular interest is the role that leisure may play in the development of ethnic identity among transracial adoptees. This paper illustrates that research related to ethnic identity development conducted within immigrant populations and biracial families has insights to share, but that much remains to be discovered that is potentially unique to transracial, adoptive families. Similarly, this paper highlights that studies conducted within the United States, due to the differing orientations toward immigration and visible minorities, may not accurately generalize to the Canadian context, which indicates a need for exclusively Canadian as well as comparative research. Recommendations are made regarding future research needs concerning the ethnic identity development of transracial adoptees and the role of leisure in such a process.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.084
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.318 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLeisure/LoisirSame topicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness ManagementFrench-language works237,207