MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394853351 · doi:10.1111/bjso.12751

Honour, acculturation and well‐being: Evidence from the <scp>UK</scp> and Canada

2024· article· en· W4394853351 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ayşe K. Üskül, Jorida Cila, Pelin Gül, Alexander Kirchner‐Häusler, Barbora Hubená

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Social Psychology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHonourAcculturationImmigrationSocial psychologyPsychologyMainstreamDignitySociologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adopting a social psychological approach, across three studies (N = 927) in two western immigrant-receiving societies (UK and Canada), we examined the role of honour in acculturation variables (i.e., immigrants' heritage and mainstream cultural orientation and well-being), controlling for some of the commonly studied predictors of immigrant adaptation. We assessed honour as concern (Studies 1 and 2) and as a desired attribute for men and women (Study 3) and studied well-being in terms of acculturative stress (Study 1) and subjective evaluation of one's life (Studies 1 and 3). We examined our questions among groups of immigrants originating from honour (Studies 1 and 2) and dignity cultural groups (Study 1) and from first- and second-generation immigrants (Study 3). Overall, despite some significant associations at the bivariate level between honour and acculturation outcomes, findings provided mixed support for the claim that honour (measured as concerns and cultural codes) plays a significant role in immigrant acculturation above and beyond commonly studied predictors of immigrant adaptation.

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)0.005
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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Social PsychologySame topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207