MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149460619 · doi:10.1177/0959354302121004

Acculturation, Dialogical Voices and the Construction of the Diasporic Self

2002· article· en· W2149460619 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sunil Bhatia

Bibliographic record

VenueTheory & Psychology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSocial Representations and Identity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDialogical selfSociologyAcculturationGender studiesHomelandIdentity (music)DiasporaPower (physics)ImmigrationEthnic groupCultural identityNegotiationPoliticsAestheticsAnthropologySocial psychologyPolitical scienceSocial sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article argues that various Third World, diasporic communities (e.g. Indian-American, Chinese-Canadian, Turkish-German), settled primarily in Europe and North America, negotiate their cultural identities as citizens of First World countries while retaining a strong identification with the culture of their home country. A dialogical model of acculturation is employed to explain the psychological complexities, contradictions and cultural specificities involved in the experiences of these non-European, diasporic communities. Such a model illustrates how the diasporic identity is shaped by, and linked to, the cultural and political issues of race, gender, colonization and power that are present in the hostland and the homeland. I draw upon Said's memoir Out of Place (1999) to show how a diasporic immigrant's effort to rework the different parts of one's heritage or ethnicity entails an ongoing, dialogical negotiation between the I positions of feeling simultaneously assimilated, separated and marginalized.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.048
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations180
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheory & PsychologySame topicSocial Representations and IdentityFrench-language works237,207