Do acculturation strategies have impacts on the self-declared health, well-being and lifestyle of first-generation allophone immigrants in Montreal, Canada?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to understand to what extent, the process of acculturation and the strategies which ensue from it can affect the self-declared health as regards the lifestyle, the physical activity, the diet and the well-being of first-generation immigrants living in the Montreal region (Quebec, Canada). Design/methodology/approach – A supervised survey was administered to adult allophones immigrants attending French-language courses, autumn 2011 (506 valid surveys). The authors discuss the concept and the validation of their acculturation model and its relevance in regard of the purposes of the research. Findings – The indicator allowed to clearly identify three groups that differentiate on numerous variables of the survey. Independently of the acculturations strategies adopted by the respondents, the authors observe a deterioration of the self-declared overall state of health, development of sedentary living, a fairly high level of stress and depressive episode within the entire sample. However, the group isolated as “retention” has consistently the lowest scores on all these variables. In terms of public health and health social inequalities issues these results are worrisome. The “assimilation” group have the highest scores and the “integration” group consistently shows and intermediate “balancing” position. Originality/value – The authors claim that the strategies of acculturation are not always the expression of a free will. They are also the product of constraints specific to the host society and are just as much the result of the pre-migratory socialization. This is especially the case of the “retention” group and more specifically of women. The negative effects of social, cultural and economic constraints of the host society on overall health, well-being and lifestyle as well as adaptation strategies should be monitored in a more systematic manner in recent immigrant populations and be specifically addressed in immigrant integration policies and programmes.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".