MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000743544 · doi:10.1111/ajsp.12401

Social capital, acculturation attitudes, and sociocultural adaptation of migrants from central Asian republics and South Korea in Russia

2020· article· en· W3000743544 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander Tatarko, John W. Berry, Keunwon Choi

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Journal Of Social Psychology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Student and Expatriate Challenges
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcculturationSociocultural evolutionSocial capitalEthnic groupMediationAdaptation (eye)PsychologyPolitical scienceSocial psychologySociologyDemographic economicsSocial scienceAnthropologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research examines the relationship of social capital with the acculturation attitudes and sociocultural adaptation of 122 migrants from Central Asian republics of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan) and 136 migrants from South Korea. The questionnaire included scales for assessing acculturation attitudes (integration, assimilation, and separation), individual social capital (bridging and bonding), and sociocultural adaptation. Using parallel mediation analysis, we found that acculturation attitudes for migrants from Central Asia are secondary to their social capital in relation to sociocultural adaptation. However, among migrants from South Korea, social capital is not linked to their acculturation attitudes, and in general, its role in sociocultural adaptation is lower as compared to the role of acculturation attitudes. As a whole, our research shows that although sociocultural adaptation for all ethnic groups is linked to acculturation attitudes and social capital, acculturation attitudes for certain ethnic groups can be dependent on social capital.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.631
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations23
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Journal Of Social PsychologySame topicInternational Student and Expatriate ChallengesFrench-language works237,207