The role of acculturation in the emerging adulthood of aboriginal college students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compared to traditional, non-Western cultures, emerging adulthood (18–25 years of age) may look considerably different in cultures that place emphasis on the group (i.e., collectivistic) over the individual (i.e., individualistic). However, within minority cultures, individual members vary on the extent to which they identify with their heritage culture. Thus, the purpose of this study was to explore the role that culture, particularly acculturation to Canadian aboriginal heritage culture, may play in emerging adulthood. Specifically, aboriginal emerging adults who scored above or below the mean of their peers on acculturation to their heritage (aboriginal) culture were compared to their majority European Canadian counterparts in several aspects of emerging adulthood including (a) perceived adult status, (b) perceived criteria for adulthood, (c) achieved criteria for adulthood, (d) personal beliefs about the future, and (e) risk behaviours. Results revealed the significance of examining acculturation in understanding the role of culture in the process of emerging adulthood, particularly among ethnic minority youth. In particular, findings revealed that young aboriginal adults’ level of identification with aboriginal traditions such as the significance of interdependence and maintenance of harmony, the role of children and family, and historical sociocultural events appeared to play a role in many aspects of emerging adulthood.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".