Imaginary, Spirituality and Subjective Well-Being of Second-Generation Chinese Canadians: Exploring the Lived Experience of Well-Being in a Bicultural Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bicultural second-generation immigrants face unique challenges including identity confusion and difficulties managing cultural values from heritage and mainstream cultures. To explore the well-being of the bicultural second-generation Chinese Canadian (SGCC) population, the current study adopted the theoretical approach of Durand’s Anthropological Structures of Imaginary, which study myths, cultures and human behaviours with symbols and imaginary. The aim of this study was to understand the lived experience of subjective well-being (happiness) of SGCC, how they achieve subjective well-being in an environment with conflictual cultural values, the relationship between subjective well-being and the mythical categories (heroic, mystical and synthetic / systemic), and how the relationship with the Higher Being impact their well-being. This study was a phenomenological, qualitative study involving 34 second-generation Chinese Canadians, aged 19-45 in the Greater Toronto Area of Southern Ontario, Canada. Participants completed a socio-demographic questionnaire and the Archetypal Test with Nine Elements (AT.9) test. Twelve participants (7 male and 5 female) of the same group participated in one-on-one, in-depth, semi-structured interviews. Eighty-eight percent of participants identified themselves as bicultural Chinese Canadians. SGCC valued multiculturalism, and preferred diversity. Well-being was defined as achievement of various personal and relational goals including emotional, relational and life purpose fulfillment. Generally, well-being was high, despite negative life experiences. Cultural tension was mild to moderate, and experienced primarily at home due to parental rigidity and authoritarianism. SGCC managed cultural dissonance in different ways, often avoiding direct confrontation and preferring situational approaches. Family relationships were highly prioritized during conflict. Regarding mythical categories, 55% of participants were synthetic / systemic, 18% were heroic, 21% were mystical, and 6% were unstructured. No relationship was found between mythical category and well-being. Those with a relationship with the Higher Being reported its positive contribution to their well-being. Heterogeneity and openness were important elements which fostered well-being, with both terms being congruent with Durand’s framework on the imaginary and the notion of optimal mental health.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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".