Latino immigrant parents’ experiences raising young children in the absence of extended family networks in Canada: Implications for counselling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Latinos account for 10% of newcomers to Canada, and most are families with young children under the age of 10. In their homelands, Latinos are supported in the parenting process by extended family networks due to the cultural value of familism. Migration to Canada disrupts extended family care-giving, as only one’s spouse and dependent children are allowed to accompany the principal immigration applicant. The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore Latino immigrant parents of young children’s experiences of parenting in Canada in the absence of their extended families, and how they adjust to this new lived reality. An ethnically mixed sample of 10 parents (5 mothers and 5 fathers) participated in semi-structured interviews, which were analysed via thematic analysis. Emerging themes suggested a perceived “uploading” of parental responsibility after migration, producing fear, worry, sadness, loneliness and burnout. These experiences resulted in the negotiation of new parenting partnerships with unanticipated positive outcomes: increased nuclear family cohesion and increased father involvement in childrearing. Parents also described how new support networks were established in surprising ways, such as through interfaces with the health care system. Interventions for facilitating the successful adaptation of Latino parents in a similar predicament are discussed.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".