Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ethnographic study focuses on the experience of inclusion and exclusion for young transnational women who were adopted from India, by Indian-Canadian immigrant parents. The study examines the process of international adoption, and the emerging themes of belonging, identity and connectedness in Canada. The feelings of inclusion and exclusion will be analyzed through the lens of the self and relationships with family, friends and the local community. The paper will unpack the meaning of identity and belonging through reflecting on the experiences and memories of growing up in a single parent Indian family as an international adoptee from India. The focus of the paper will further contrast theories of scholars (Manzi, Ferrari, Rosnati, and Benet-Martinez, 2014) who have introduced concepts of multiple identities, and belonging. These scholars have applied these concepts to transracial adoptees, who have been adopted by families of a different race and/or ethnic background. By interviewing other international adoptees and analyzing their experiences, this paper will establish the similarities international adoptees encounter, and the challenges adoptees face in families of the same origin when they deal with integration into Canadian culture. Through a compare and contrast I will examine these factors in relation to my identity and its development. In conclusion, I have used my experiences and recent travel back to India to address the feelings of inclusion and exclusion. This has resulted in a cultural identity conflict between the country of origin and my adopted country. Therefore, I find myself neither included nor excluded, but rather I am placed in the center of both cultural identities.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".