Heritage Acculturation Is Associated With Contextual Factors at Four Different Levels of Proximity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What factors explain the extent to which members of cultural minorities maintain their heritage cultural engagement? Although this process, called heritage acculturation, has significant implications for adjustment, we know little about its antecedents. The present work sought to address two shortcomings of acculturation research: (a) the need to characterize antecedents of acculturation orientations and (b) the need to consider acculturation as a contextual phenomenon. Some studies have documented associations between acculturation and specific contextual variables (e.g., family socialization), but an important feature of this research was to examine the unique contribution of factors at multiple levels of proximity simultaneously. Specifically, this study considered intraindividual, home, social network, and neighborhood-level contextual correlates of heritage acculturation. The overarching hypothesis tested among multicultural university students in Canada ( n = 271) was that people whose life contexts are more strongly imbued with heritage cultural influences would report greater heritage acculturation. Results fully supported this hypothesis. Greater heritage language competence, “parental” living arrangements, a more extensive heritage social network, and living in an ethnically denser neighborhood were all related to greater heritage cultural maintenance. Further, only heritage network extensiveness was negatively related to mainstream cultural engagement—attesting to the cultural specificity of these associations. These results suggest that none of the four contextual levels considered here was sufficient on its own to understand participants’ heritage acculturation and that we need a holistic view of the person in her or his multiple contexts when studying acculturation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".