MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293106683 · doi:10.1177/14705958221081631

New in town, already settled in: Assessing the behavioural and experiential indicators that lead to acculturative advantages

2022· article· en· W4293106683 on OpenAlexaff
Qin Han

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Cross Cultural Management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcculturationConstruct (python library)Experiential learningPsychologySocial psychologyDynamismContext (archaeology)Extant taxonNexus (standard)SociologyGeographyEpistemologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We supplement extant literature on acculturation by introducing a new construct – individual acculturation action profile (IAAP) – consisting of a configuration of behavioural and experiential indicators that reflect an individual’s previous and current contact with and participation in other cultures. We operationalise each IAAP indicator individually, and the IAAP construct as an aggregated index (IAAPi), by assigning different weights to each construct indicator based on the magnitude of its theorised influence. We distinguish the antecedents of IAAP at multiple levels. Whilst contextual factors are likely to enhance or hinder people’s participation in other cultures, we propose a taxonomy that addresses the dynamism between context and individual initiative. This article thereby expands literature on acculturation, offering notable implications for advantageous acculturative processes and outcomes. The proposed operationalisation of the IAAP construct at the acculturation–organisation nexus can be applied to study many walks of society and outcomes at multiple levels.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.375 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Cross Cultural ManagementSame topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207