MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099064967 · doi:10.1177/0022022111428172

The Relationship Between Perceived Parental Rejection and Adjustment for Arab, Canadian, and Arab Canadian Youth

2011· article· en· W2099064967 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sarah Rasmi, Susan S. Chuang, Saba Safdar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cross-Cultural Psychology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationNormativeLife satisfactionPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyEthnic groupDemographySocial psychologyPolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study examined whether psychological well-being, life satisfaction, and risk behavior differed among European Canadian ( n = 147), Arab Canadian ( n = 129), and Arab youth in Egypt and Lebanon ( n = 131). Using parental acceptance-rejection theory, we also examined the strength of associations between perceived parental rejection and positive and negative outcomes for these youth. Our results suggested that European Canadian youth were less likely to perceive parental rejection and had higher life satisfaction than both Arab groups. However, although Arab Canadians and Arabs perceived more parental rejection than their European Canadian counterparts, it had less of an effect on their adjustment. We argued that culturally normative aspects of parent-youth relationships in Arab families may mitigate the effects of perceived parental rejection and that immigration may not exert a negative effect on Arab families in Canada. Instead, we suggested that researchers need to focus on the strengths of youth and families, rather than the negative effects of immigration and/or cultural group status.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations20
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cross-Cultural PsychologySame topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207