Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we extended the socioecological approach in cross-cultural psychology to the acculturation context. We focused on relational mobility among Asian Canadians and how it is related to their acculturation experience. Previous research shows that relational mobility, which is a feature of one’s social environment, is generally higher in North America than East Asia. In Study 1, we found that migration does not completely bridge the cross-national gap in relational mobility. Compared with European Canadians, Asian Canadians continued to perceive lower relational mobility around them. Study 2 explored the relations between relational mobility and Asian Canadians’ acculturation experiences. Relational mobility was correlated specifically with sociocultural adaptation, but not contact, acculturation orientations, psychological adaptation, or experience of discrimination. It was also uniquely associated with normative belief about relational mobility. Finally, we largely replicated the effects of relational mobility on self-esteem (Study 1) and close friendships (Study 2) in the acculturation context, with the latter effects further mediated by normative belief about relational mobility. Implications of our findings for relational mobility and acculturation research 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".