MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791929553 · doi:10.7202/1043500ar

The Combined Effect of Ethnic Identity Strength and Profiles on the Mental Health of Acadian University Students

2018· article· en· W2791929553 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jérémie B. Dupuis, Ann M. Beaton

Bibliographic record

VenueMinorités linguistiques et société · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRacial and Ethnic Identity Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnic groupModerationPsychologyMental healthIdentity (music)Ethnic discriminationSocial psychologyVulnerability (computing)Confirmatory factor analysisClinical psychologySociologyStructural equation modelingPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This two-part study aims to examine the moderating effect of ethnic identity strength on the relationship between ethnic identity profiles and mental health among Acadian university students who occupy a relative minority or majority status in the province of New Brunswick. Study 1 tested the factorial structure of an ethnic identity profile measure for Acadian students. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported a three-factor model, resulting in Affirmation, Detachment and Insecurity profiles. In Study 2, results of the moderation analysis revealed that the combination of a strong ethnic identity and an Affirmation profile provides protection against mental health issues for minority-status Acadian students, but not for majority-status Acadian students. Conversely, the combinations of a strong ethnic identity with the Detachment and Insecurity profiles increased the vulnerability of minority-status Acadian students to mental health issues, but not that of majority-status students.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.405 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMinorités linguistiques et sociétéSame topicRacial and Ethnic Identity ResearchFrench-language works237,207