MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2280020624 · doi:10.1177/0743558416630814

Seeing Eye to Eye in Arab Canadian Families

2016· article· en· W2280020624 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sarah Rasmi, Susan S. Chuang, Karl H. Hennig

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Adolescent Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRacial and Ethnic Identity Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcculturationTheme (computing)PsychologyIdentity (music)ImmigrationSocial psychologyNarrativeDevelopmental psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using a narrative approach, we explored acculturation gaps, parent-child relationships, and conflict (intergenerational conflict and ethnocultural identity conflict) in a sample of immigrant Arab Canadian emerging adults. Our findings revealed that perceived acculturation gaps co-occurred with intergenerational conflict (Theme 1) and ethnocultural identity conflict (Theme 2). Furthermore, the parent–emerging adult relationship was observed to play a role in the co-occurrence of perceived acculturation gaps and conflict. Specifically, participants described strong parent–emerging adult relationships as minimizing the co-occurrence of perceived acculturation gaps and intergenerational conflict (Theme 3), as well as perceived acculturation gaps and ethnocultural identity conflict (Theme 4). On the other hand, participants described weak parent–emerging adult relationships as exacerbating the co-occurrence of perceived acculturation gaps and intergenerational conflict (Theme 3), as well as perceived acculturation gaps and ethnocultural identity conflict (Theme 4). We presented these analyses using thick and rich data extracts from the participants themselves.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0200.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.361 · 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

Citations14
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Adolescent ResearchSame topicRacial and Ethnic Identity ResearchFrench-language works237,207