Culture, immigration and femininity perception: Comparing young Iranian, Canadian, and Iranian-Canadian immigrant women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compares young women’s perception of femininity in three sample of iranians, canadians and iranian-canadian immigrants to understand femininity in two different cultures, and also the immigrants’ position in comparison to source and destination countries. 45 iranian, 21 canadian, and 19 immigrant students participated in focus group discussions of femininity and its norms. Data was coded using content analysis method and frequency of each theme was counted. Frequency of common themes in these three groups was compared by chi square, and then themes were compared 2 by 2 using independent t-test. Content analysis of data revealed nine themes in iranian’s, six in canadian’s, and nine in iranian-canadian immigrants’ perception of femininity. There were five common themes, including “success orientation” and “feminine personal traits” and several distinguishing themes like “chastity” and “personal safety”. Group-specific norms are congruent with more general cultural differences in Iran and Canada, and also special situation of immigrants’ life.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".