Evaluating the integration hypothesis: A <scp>meta‐analysis</scp> of the <scp>ICSEY</scp> project data using two new methods
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.
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 | 0.062 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".