MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121498787 · doi:10.1177/0022022106292080

Similarities and Differences in Acculturation Among Mothers, Fathers, and Children in Immigrant Chinese Families

2006· article· en· W2121498787 on OpenAlexaffabout
Catherine L. Costigan, Daphné P. Dokis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cross-Cultural Psychology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRacial and Ethnic Identity Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcculturationEthnic groupResidenceImmigrationPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyChinese americansDemographySociologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Similarities and differences in acculturation in multiple domains were evaluated among mothers, fathers, and children in 88 immigrant Chinese families in Canada. Parents and children differed most in host culture domains (public Canadian behaviors and private Canadian values) and were most similar in ethnic private domains (Chinese identity and values). Differences in the ethnic public domain (Chinese behaviors) were moderate. Unexpectedly, considerable mother-father differences were also evident across domains. The predictors of parent-child differences varied by domain. Differences in public domains were larger in mother-child dyads and in families with longer residence in Canada. Differences in ethnic private domains were larger in father-child dyads and in families characterized by less warmth. Findings are discussed in terms of the domain specificity of cultural transmission and the influence of immigrant parents in host versus ethnic dimensions.

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 score0.218
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.377 · 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

Citations105
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cross-Cultural PsychologySame topicRacial and Ethnic Identity ResearchFrench-language works237,207