A Comparative Study of Housing Culture of Korean Immigrants through Analysis of Living Arrangement in Australia and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to provide information about domestic living of Korean immigrants in Australia and Canada who have the same cultural background for comparative study. For this, usage of domestic space and living style in housing of 52 Korean households in Melbourne of Australia and 32 Korean households in the region of Waterloo of Canada were analyzed. Ethnographic research with questionnaire were used. Results of the research were as follows. 1. Korean immigrants in each countries were living in houses which was built by company of Australia and Canada. 44.2% of Korean immigrants in Australia were using L+D K and 53.1% of Korean immigrants in Canada were using L D K. 2. Laundry was indispensable for Korean immigrants in both countries and they all wanted to use the laundry as a utility room which could dry, ironing and so on. 3. Drain hole on the floor of the bathroom was not indispensable for most Korean immigrants in both countries for hygienic reason. 4. Korean immigrants in both countries were ironing in master bedroom and they all wanted to separate it from there through renovation and extension and so on. 5. Korean immigrants in Canada were more active to use the formal lounge which has been planned as a traditional element of western house. 6. The seating style of Korean immigrants in both countries belong to chair-seating style mostly. But it was clear that they were making Kimchi with floor seating style in both countries. 7. A level of satisfaction about using carpet was not high for Korean immigrants in both countries cause of uneasiness to clean and it was considered to relate to the floor seating style of them. 8. Almost Korean immigrants were took off the shoes inside of the house and they had shoes cabinet beside the entrance or basement usually. 9. The most popular heating system was ducted heating in both countries. The level of satisfaction about this was different for Korean immigrants in Australia and Canada but most desirable heating system was Ondol for them in both countries commonly.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".