Exploring Intercultural Relationships: A Study of Russian Immigrants Married to Native Israelis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To explore the internal dynamics of intercultural marriage, we conducted in-depth interviews with 18 married couples, of whom one partner was born in Israel and the other immigrated from the former Soviet Union. The interviews focused on the contentious issues of everyday life: self-identity, language use, cultural consumption, relations with the families/friends, division of household labor, and childrearing. The findings point to a clear tendency for immigrants to make most adjustments to the norms and expectations of the Israeli spouses and their social networks. For most immigrant spouses, the selective acculturation they had hoped for at the outset in fact morphed into relentless assimilation. The lsraelization was expressed in the exclusive use of Hebrew in these homes; preference of Israeli spouse’s families, friends, and pastimes, Israeli style in cooking and housekeeping, as well as Israeli-Hebrew socialization of the children. The drift towards the hegemonic culture experienced by the Russian wives was stronger than for the Russian husbands. The findings are discussed in the light of gender differentials in power relations, comparative statuses of Hebrew and Russian cultures in Israel, and possible self-selection of individuals wishing to leave their culture of origin via out-marriage.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".