MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982856059 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.50.3.004

Uncovering Inner Dilemmas Experienced by Parents of Multicultural Families in Japan

2019· article· en· W2982856059 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Teresa Koide, Tomoko Yoshida, Erina Ogawa, Makiko Kuramoto, Jimena Emily Homma, Miho Naruse

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Student and Expatriate Challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConformityMulticulturalismFeelingSocial psychologyPsychologySociologyGender studiesNegotiationDevelopmental psychologySocial sciencePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examined challenges parents in intercultural marriages are confronted with when raising their multicultural children in Japan by weighing societal pressures, language usage, and inner struggles. Twenty interviews were conducted with Japanese and non-Japanese parents and revealed that parents, children, and society were in constant negotiation interacting and influencing each other. Extended families, residential communities, and schools were key factors which influenced the family’s experience. The role conformity plays in Japan ( Hofstede, 2001 ) and the tightness of Japanese culture ( Gelfand et al., 2011 ) were substantial sources of stress for the parents. The descriptive data suggested societal pressure to conform led to non-Japanese parents feeling out of place. Various levels of language proficiency of family members led to stress and isolation within some multicultural homes. Finally, inner struggles linked to cultural differences led to emotional distress. Visual markers, differing norms and values of the parents’ heritage cultures, distinct gender roles in Japan, as well as differing core assumptions deeply rooted in the parents’ cultural foundations contributed to these struggles.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Family StudiesSame topicInternational Student and Expatriate ChallengesFrench-language works237,207