Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to explore the gift-giving motives of migrants.The first objective was to develop statistically validated measures of the motives of gift-giving in the context of migrants giving gifts to their siblings or to those with whom they have a sibling like relationship, on the occasion of home country travel.The second objective was to examine the relationships between gift-giving motives, Schwartz' basic human values, immigrants' intention to return permanently to their home country, and their relative economic status.The data came from South-Asian and Lebanese Canadian samples.Data was collected in two stages via a self-administered survey which could be completed on-line or in a pencil and paper format.In Stage One, 207 usable cases were obtained and in Stage Two, 316 valid cases were obtained.The data in Stage One was subjected to exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses as well as reliability analyses to develop an eight-factor gift-giving motives measurement scale.In Stage Two the data were subjected to the same analyses to refine the measurement scale developed in Stage One.Measures were successfully developed for the following eight theoretically driven constructs representing gift-giving motives: agonistic, insurance, demonstrating achievement/seeking status, maintaining rituals, reciprocity, utilitarian, guilt, and maintaining social ties.Regression analyses supported theorized links between self-enhancement values and gift-giving motives of agonistic, insurance and demonstrating achievement and seeking status.Similarly, the hypothesized relationships between conservation values and gift-giving motives of maintaining rituals, maintaining social ties, and guilt were also supported.Self-transcendence values were found to predict utilitarian and maintaining social ties motives of gift-giving and openness to change values were found to predict the agonistic motive, as theorized.The relationships between self-transcendence values and guilt and between conservation values and insurance were not supported.The predicted relationships of self-transcendence and iii conservation values with the gift-giving motive of reciprocity was not supported, suggesting that this motive, in particular, needs further exploration in future research.The findings of this research provide a comprehensive set of measures for gift-giving motives and insights into their relationship with basic human values for continued conceptual, theoretical and empirical work on the topic of gift-giving.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".