MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2907295102 · doi:10.4324/9780415963619-4

The Acculturation Experience: Attitudes, Identities, and Behaviors of Immigrant Youth

2006· book-chapter· en· W2907295102 on OpenAlexaff
Jean S. Phinney, John W. Berry, Paul Vedder, Karmela Liebkind

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology Press eBooks · 2006
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcculturationImmigrationPsychologySocial psychologySociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter examines the experiences, attitudes, and behaviors of adolescents from immigrant families in diverse societies as they move toward adulthood in the context of two or more cultural frameworks. It presents conceptual and empirical background on the acculturation experience, focusing on what psychologists term intercultural variables, specifically, acculturation attitudes, cultural identities, language proficiency and usage, peer contacts, family relationship values, and perceived discrimination. The chapter presents results from psychologists&s; study that address the general question: How do immigrant adolescents experience the acculturation process? The results are presented in two ways. The chapter first describes specific acculturation variables, their correlates, and their interrelationships. Second, using a person-oriented approach based on cluster analysis, the chapter identifies profiles of acculturation that reflect individual differences in the way adolescents acculturate. For adolescents in immigrant families, acculturation attitudes are shaped in large part by their families and communities.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations222
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychology Press eBooksSame topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207