Bibliographic record
Abstract
EDITORS' INTRODUCTION Cultures have never been static. Their fluid nature means that individuals in any culture are equally likely to be influenced by effects of other cultures and factors with which they may have direct or indirect contact. Some of the cultural characteristics and inherent traits in individuals are more prone to changes than others. The impact of one culture on another depends upon a number of factors, such as the degree of the contact, duration of this contact and purpose of such contact. If one culture invades another for political and economic reasons, the outcome is likely to be different than if the contact is through media at a distance. Linked within this process is the process of urbanization, which brings another set of changes within one culture. Berry, in this chapter, defines acculturation as a process of cultural and psychological change in cultural groups, families and individuals following intercultural contact. Cultural identity refers to the ways in which individuals establish and maintain connections with, and a sense of belonging to, various groups. The processes and outcomes of these processes are highly variable, with large group and individual differences. This chapter focuses on describing some of these processes, the strategies people use to deal with them, and the adaptations that result. Three questions are raised: how do individuals and groups seek to acculturate?; how well do they succeed?; and are there any relationships between how they go about acculturation and their psychological and sociocultural success? In reviewing studies addressing these questions, Berry notes that evidence indicates that the most commonly chosen strategy is integration (defined as preferring to maintain one's cultural heritage while seeking to participate in the life of the larger society), rather than assimilation, separation or marginalization.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".