Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the acculturation and wellbeing of immigrants in Canada. Acculturation is broadly defined as the set of cultural and psychological changes that follow the contact between two cultural groups and their members (Berry, 2005).The different ways of relating to the larger society and to their heritage group have been called acculturation strategies (Berry, 1980; Berry, Kim, Power, Young, & Bujaki, 1989). We examine some of the social and demographic factors that may lead immigrants to acculturate in these different ways. We also examine the wellbeing of immigrants (specifically their psychological adaptation; Ward, 1996) and relate their wellbeing to both their acculturation strategies, and to these social and demographic factors. We compare the wellbeing of the immigrant sample to a nonimmigrant sample. Finally, we draw some implications from these concepts and findings for improving the settlement and adaptation of immigrants to Canada.These issues are important not only for the success of immigrants, but also for the cohesion of the larger society. Achieving the wellbeing of immigrants and refugees is an essential goal for Canadian society (Kirmayer et al., 2011). This goal may be pursued within the context of the official policy of multiculturalism, which seeks to create a climate of positive mutual intercultural relations and mutual adaptation among all groups, in a society that is cohesive and relatively free from prejudice and discrimination (Jedwab, 2013; Noels & Berry, 2016).These goals are pursued by two major multiculturalism policy initiatives (Berry, 1984). The first is by supporting the cultural maintenance of individuals and groups (who so wish) to sustain cultural diversity across generations as a valuable feature of Canadian society. The second is to support intercultural interactions and inclusion to enhance mutual familiarity and acceptance; this is accomplished by programmes to break down social barriers to participation in the larger society, and by promoting opportunities for intercultural encounters in person, in the media, in schools, and in other institutions. Inherent in this multicultural vision is the acceptance of the view that individuals can be proud of and feel attached to both their heritage cultures and to Canada. The underlying notion is that an individual may hold many identities, know many languages, and develop many cultural competencies, and thereby participate in many cultural communities, without any serious psychological incompatibilities among them.The first goal of the present study is to examine how immigrants are acculturating to Canada by examining immigrants' sense of belonging to their source country and to Canada. We conceive of sense of belonging as a general feeling of inclusion and the desire to be close to a relevant social group (Hidalgo & Hernandez, 2001; Pearce, 2008). For immigrants, a sense of belonging to their source country can provide a cultural anchor during their transition into the new society. And a sense of belonging to the receiving society reflects whether they feel accepted, secure, and at home in their adopted country (Berry, 2005; Hou, Schellenberg, & Berry, 2016; Schimmele & Wu, 2015; Wu, Hou, & Schimmele, 2011). Note that these two ways of relating to a cultural community are parallel to the two main features of multiculturalism policy that were identified above: maintaining one's own heritage culture and being involved with the larger society. From these two indicators of sense of belonging, we create four acculturation strategies (Berry, 1980): integration (high sense of belonging to both their source country and to Canada), assimilation (high for Canada and low for source country), separation (low for Canada and high for source country), and marginalisation (low for both).A second goal of this study is to examine the wellbeing (psychological adaptation) of immigrants, using the concepts and measures of life satisfaction and mental health. …
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".