“To See Ourselves as Others See Us”: On the Implications of Reflected Appraisals for Ethnic Identity and Discrimination
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined how immigrants’ feelings of ethnic identity align with their perceptions of how other people see them, and how these reflected appraisals from others contribute to immigrants’ experience of discrimination. First-generation ( N = 94) and second-generation ( N = 140) Chinese Canadians completed a questionnaire which assessed their ethnic identity and the reflected appraisals of members from Chinese and Anglo Canadian communities across four situational domains (family, friends, university, community). The results showed that both generations generally felt that they were regarded by both Chinese and Anglo Canadians as more Chinese than they felt themselves but indicated few discrepancies between self- and reflected appraisals of Canadian identity. Reflected appraisals were associated with the experience of personal discrimination only in the second-generation group. The discussion emphasizes the importance of a situational perspective on ethnic identity and underscores important differences between generational groups in their experience of identity and discrimination.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it