MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096820515 · doi:10.1080/00207590500412227

A person‐centred approach to identifying acculturation groups among Chinese Canadians

2006· article· en· W2096820515 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Psychology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRacial and Ethnic Identity Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcculturationPsychologyEthnic groupSocial psychologyResidenceCluster (spacecraft)Developmental psychologySociologyDemographyAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study adopted a person‐centred approach to explore acculturation groups among Chinese Canadians and to examine the demographic and adjustment profiles associated with each group. A total of 234 Chinese Canadian university students completed measures assessing different aspects of their Chinese and Canadian cultural orientations. Cluster analyses identified five acculturation groups: Integrated Group, Separated Group, Assimilated Group, Integrated Group without Chinese Practices, and Marginalized Group with Chinese Practices. Three of the five groups resembled Berry's acculturation model, and the other two groups demonstrated unique constellations of cultural orientations. The differences between the current acculturation groups and Berry's acculturation strategies were due to the differentiation between internal and external domains of cultural orientation, the addition of the domain of ethnic group evaluation, which is not typically included in acculturation research, and the use of cluster analysis, which allows for varying degrees of immersion in multiple domains of acculturation. Expected differences among the five acculturation groups in terms of participants' demographic backgrounds (e.g., length of residence in Canada), language preferences, and psychological adjustment supported the validity of the cluster solution. As expected, members of the Marginalized Group with Chinese Practices, the largest single group in the current sample, reported poorer adjustment than the Assimilated Group and the Integrated Group without Chinese Practices. The results of this study highlight the value of simultaneously considering multiple domains of acculturation and argue against research methods that assume acculturation status based on background factors such as place of birth or language use. Implications of these findings for understanding the cultural adaptation of Chinese Canadians are discussed.

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.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.486
Threshold uncertainty score0.973

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.351 · 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