“Responsible” or “Strange?” Differences in Face Mask Attitudes and Use Between Chinese and Non-East Asian Canadians During COVID-19’s First Wave
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, journalists and scholars noted differences between Asians and North Americans in their support for public mask use. These differences were primarily assumed to be due d to variations in ethnocultural norms and practices. To better ascertain people's motives for wearing masks and potential cultural differences in these rationales, this comparative, mixed-methods research examines Chinese and non-East Asian Canadians' mask use attitudes utilizing online group interviews (Study 1) and a nation-wide survey (Study 2) Study 1, conducted in the early stages of the pandemic, captured an ambivalent, yet evolving attitude toward public mask use among the non-East Asian Canadians, which differed from their Chinese counterparts who more uniformly perceived mask use favorably. Study 2, conducted 2 months later, suggests that both groups primarily wore masks for disease protection- and prevention-related reasons. However, age and education appeared to influence the mask wearing frequency of the non-East Asian Canadians, for whom public mask use was less prevalent and normative. The attitudinal differences in public mask use call for targeted strategies to support mask wearing for different ethnocultural groups, which may be achieved partially through enhancing interethnic understanding on the diversified use of and opinions about masks. The findings suggest that favorable social norms, along with evidence-based information campaigns involving personal appeals may encourage greater mask use by the non-East Asian population.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".