The relationship between acculturative stress and perceived locus of control expectancies in recently arrived refugees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Refugees often experience traumatic life events causing loss of home, family members, and social support networks. The process of adjusting to a new culture challenges, confuses and often invalidates an individual's previous sense of identity status, and perceived level of control. The greater the disparity between the refugee culture and the new host culture, the greater the difficulty will be in the adjustment, contributing to acculturative stress (Berry, 1980; Pedersen, in press). How an individual responds to this situation of stress, may be influenced by their perceived locus of control. Cawte's Stress Inventory Scale (1972) was used to measure acculturative stress (Berry, Kim, Minde & Mok, 1987). Levenson's (1974) Internal Powerful Others and Chance Locus of Control Scales were used to measure internal and external locus of control. Four open-ended questions were included to provide information regarding areas of difficulty and sources of assistance. The population was selected from El Salvadoreans refugees, who have been living in the Greater Vancouver area. It was expected that perceived locus of control would correlate with levels of acculturative stress, and that differences between gender, age and education levels and levels of stress and locus of control would be discerned. Results of this study revealed that there were no significant differences between males and females in mean scores of acculturative stress and locus of control. Results of the correlation between acculturative stress and internal, powerful others and chance locus of control were not statistically significant. Contrary to the hypothesis regarding locus of control, eighty percent of the respondents recorded and Internal locus of control orientation. Results on the acculturative stress scale reported equally high mean scores for both males and females.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".