Communicating across and within generations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies of people’s perceptions of intergenerational communication in many countries around the Pacific Rim suggest that aspects of intergenerational communication in some East Asian nations may be more problematic than in some Western ones. This study extends the earlier work by considering similarities and differences between Taiwanese and American young adults’ perceptions of communication with same-age peers and adults 65 years of age and older. As well, in an attempt to discover how the acculturation process may affect intergenerational relations, the perceptions of young Chinese-Americans were also examined. Two-hundred and three participants (including 98 Taiwanese, 47 Euro-Americans, and 59 Chinese-Americans) completed a questionnaire that assessed their perceptions of accommodation and nonaccommodation from members of the two age groups. Also assessed was the extent to which the participants felt deferential towards and avoidant of communication with these two age groups, as well as the experience of positive emotions in these interactions. Consistent with earlier work, young adults were more positive with regards to communication with other younger adults than with older adults, and Euro-Americans generally perceived interactions more positively than people in Taiwan. The Chinese-Americans were similar to the Taiwanese in some respects and similar to the Euro-Americans in others.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".