Bicultural identity orientation of immigrants to Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies of bicultural identity have claimed conflict–harmony and distance–overlap as relevant axes for describing bicultural identity, whereas other research emphasises variations across social situations. Based on this literature and focus group interviews, the bicultural identity of 300 young adults from immigrant families was examined, and a new bicultural identity instrument was developed, which included subscales assessing conflicted, monocultural, situationally alternating, complementary and hybrid identity orientations. The reliability indices and factor structure supported the distinctiveness of each of these subscales, and correlational analyses supported their validity. A second survey confirmed the factor structure and demonstrated meaningful differences between first- and second-generation Canadians (G1: n = 367 and G2: n = 217, respectively). In particular, both groups endorsed identity hybridity and complementarity more strongly than alternation and alternation was endorsed more strongly than monoculturality and identity conflict. As well, the G1 group reported more conflicted, monocultural and alternating identities than did the G2 group, and the G2 group reported more complementary and hybrid identities than the G1 group. These findings provide a more comprehensive understanding of the diversity of identity experiences of bicultural persons, as well as an instrument to assess these orientations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".