Evaluating the integration hypothesis: A <scp>meta‐analysis</scp> of the <scp>ICSEY</scp> project data using two new methods
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Integration Hypothesis states that acculturating migrants who adopt the integration strategy (i.e. being doubly engaged, in both their heritage culture and in the larger national society) will have better psychological and socio-cultural adaptation than those who adopt any other strategy (Assimilation, Separation or Marginalization). This hypothesis was supported in the original evaluation of the ICSEY project data, using the mean adaptation scores for individuals in the four acculturation clusters. This conclusion was further supported by an analysis that used scores that were derived from the two underlying dimensions. This paper further evaluates this hypothesis meta-analytically using two new methods: Cultural Involvement and Cultural Preference; and Euclidean Distance. The results showed that these two methods provided support for the integration hypothesis, for both psychological adaptation and socio-cultural adaptation. The pattern of relationships was stronger for positive than for negative indicators of adaptation. Theoretical and practical implications of the results are discussed.
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.
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 | 0.036 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it