Factors influencing intergenerational conflict for immigrant and non-immigrant adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the factors related to intergenerational conflict as perceived by immigrant and non-immigrant adolescents. The study replicated the work of Doreen Rosenthal (1989) using a modified version of the questionaire she administered to adolescents in Melbourne, Australia. This study was administered to 300 grade eleven students in two Vancouver high schools. The data was analysed to determine the effect of the following factors on intergenerational conflict: immigrant status, bicultural adaptation, gender, ethnicity, age at time of immigration, presence or absence of a common complex language with parents. Analysis revealed that students in general reported a moderate amount of conflict with their parents. Intergenerational conflict was not affected by whether or not the adolescent was an immigrant to Canada. Female adolescents reported higher conflict with their fathers, but no gender differences were noted with mothers. Of the three largest ethnic groups in the study, Indo-Canadians reported significantly more conflict with mothers than did either Euro-Canadians or Chinese-Canadians and a greater amount of conflict with fathers than did Chinese-Canadians. Chinese-Canadians reported less conflict with either parent than did either Indo-Canadians or Euro-Canadians. Bicultural students did not report significantly less conflict than traditional, assimilated or marginal adolescents. Age at the time of immigration did not affect the amount of intergenerational conflict. And finally, adolescents who speak a common language with their parents in the home perceived less conflict with mothers. While few recommendations could be made as a result of the findings, a framework for the analysis of integration patterns was developed, a comprehensive review of the literature conducted and questions for future research on intergenerational conflict were raised.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".