Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the bicultural identity formation and cultural experiences internalized by second-generation Indo-Canadians in their efforts to accommodate the "best of both worlds" into their lifestyle. The objectives of this article are to educate the reader to become cognizant of the bicultural issues encountered by second-generation Indo-Canadians; to demonstrate interventions suitable for the second-generation Indo-Canadian populations; and to increase the readers' understanding of bicultural identity formation. What becomes evident is that intergenerational dialogue has a profound impact on the bicultural identity formation of this population. It will serve to guide these individuals to find a third space (Bhabha 2004) or zone of proximal development (ZPD) to encourage evolvement of their bicultural identity (Cummins 1996; Gutiérrez et al. 1999). Cet article porte sur la formation d'une identité biculturelle et l'expérience culturelle telle qu'elle est internalisée par des Indo-Canadiens de la deuxième génération dans leurs efforts de faire place dans leur mode de vie au «meilleur de deux mondes». Il vise à éduquer le lecteur en lui faisant connaître les problèmes biculturels auxquels les Indo-Canadiens de deuxième génération doivent faire face, à présenter des solutions qui pourraient s'adapter à ces derniers, et à faire mieux comprendre au dit lecteur en quoi consiste la formation d'une identité biculturelle. Ce qui devient évident, c'est que le dialogue intergénérationnel qui a lieu dans cette population a un impact profond sur sa formation identitaire. Ce dialogue servira de fil conducteur à cette deuxième génération pour trouver une troisième voie (Bhabba 2004), ou zone de développement « de proximité » ( zone of proximal development ZPD), afin d'encourager l'élaboration de leur identité biculturelle (Cummings 1996; Gutiérrez et al. 1999).
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".