MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034429437 · doi:10.1100/tsw.2007.66

Towards a Chinese Conception of Adolescent Development in a Migration Context

2007· article· en· W2034429437 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ching Man Lam

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Scientific World JOURNAL · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParental Involvement in Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCovertConstruct (python library)PsychologyContext (archaeology)Chinese cultureReciprocity (cultural anthropology)Developmental psychologyErikson's stages of psychosocial developmentAdolescent developmentSocial psychologyChinaPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although there are many well-known theories of adolescent development in the West, there is a notable lack of theory with empirical support to understand the process and outcome of Chinese adolescent development. This paper attempts to advance a Chinese conception of adolescent development in a migration context. A qualitative study approach was used to explore the experiences and views of 19 Chinese-Canadian adolescents from Hong Kong and ten of their parents. The findings indicate that parents and adolescents co-construct the dominant theme of "covert parental control" in the adolescent development process, and the concept of "self in relational networks" as the adolescent development outcome. Based on the developmental experiences of these Chinese-Canadian adolescents, a culturally sensitive model of Chinese adolescent development is proposed. This model incorporates culture and migration as two essential components of the framework for a theory regarding Chinese adolescent development. It acknowledges the experience of Chinese-Canadian immigrants, takes account of the participants' personal meanings, and incorporates the indigenous Chinese cultural concepts of bao (reciprocity), guan (guidance), and guanxi (relationship).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.525
Threshold uncertainty score0.887

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Scientific World JOURNALSame topicParental Involvement in EducationFrench-language works237,207