MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2978402342

Second Language Acquisition and Acculturation Differences Between Immigrants and Refugees

2019· article· en· W2978402342 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ali Jasemi

Bibliographic record

VenueScholars Commons (Wilfrid Laurier University) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSecond Language Learning and Teaching
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcculturationRefugeeImmigrationSociologyLinguisticsPsychologyPolitical scienceGender studies
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main difference between refugees and immigrants lies in the reason for their migration. Economic immigrants migrate to other countries voluntarily, while refugees are forced to leave their countries due to fear of death or persecution (UNHCR, 2018). Such fears may lead to psychological trauma among refugees. Research has shown that the presence of trauma can negatively impact language learning (Iversen, Sveaass, & Morken, 2014), which may have important implications for both second language (L2) acquisition and acculturation, particularly in refugees. In addition, strong linguistic abilities in a first language (L1) may be beneficial to acquire other languages (Cook, 2003). This study examined the relationships between L1 skills, L2 fluency, acculturation and socio-emotional variables among newcomer Iranian refugees and immigrants and second-generation immigrants in Canada. The results indicated that the experience of trauma in refugees was significantly higher compared to the other two groups in the study. Moreover, there was a significant difference among the three groups in terms of English fluency skills. Refugees had the lowest English fluency skills, the immigrant group performed significantly better than refugees, but lower than second-generation counterparts. The English word reading efficiency was the only variable related to English reading comprehension for the Iranian refugees. However, both English word reading and English vocabulary were significantly related to L2 reading comprehension for Iranian immigrants. There were no differences between Iranian refugees and immigrants’ acculturation or enculturation. For refugees, mainstream acculturation was a significant predictor of English reading comprehension, and heritage enculturation was a significant predictor of English vocabulary and English reading comprehension. However, acculturation or enculturation were not related to English reading comprehension or heritage enculturation for Iranian immigrants. L1 fluency and other socio-emotional variables did not predict L2 fluency for any of the groups. These findings highlight important issues, first the importance of examining acculturation and enculturation on L2 acquisition. In addition, findings identify the importance of considering the differences between refugees and immigrants concerning second language acquisition.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholars Commons (Wilfrid Laurier University)Same topicSecond Language Learning and TeachingFrench-language works237,207