Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions is the tool that this researcher used to examine the cultural differences between Philip-pines and Canada, as well as new emerging culture of the Filipino Ca-nadians as a sub-group of cultures. This research study examines the different cultural dimensions - Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoid-ance, Individualism / Collectivism, Masculinity / Femininity, and Short Term / Long Term Orientation to understand the factors affect-ing the underrepresentation of Filipino Canadian Engineers in the Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) industry in Canada. The respondents of this research study are internationally trained Filipino Canadian Engineers who are also members of the Associa-tion of Filipino Canadian Engineers (AFCE). The researcher used a combination of self-made Survey Questionnaires published on Google Forms and face-to-face interviews. The questionnaires were sent via email and/or social media platforms such as Messenger and LinkedIn. The data collected were tallied, analyzed, interpreted and summa-rized using statistical treatments such as Mean, Pearson r correlation, Standard Deviation and Frequency. The study revealed that Filipinos have assimilated well into the Canadian Society in terms of the Hof-stede’s Cultural Dimensions with the exemption of Collectivism. In terms of Power Distance, Filipino Canadians revealed a low score while in the Motivation towards Achievement and Success, Filipino Canadians prefer a more work-life balance, both comparable to Cana-dians. The study also revealed that many Filipino Canadian Engineers feel that they are underrepresented in the Engineering and Construc-tion industry in their new home, Canada. Filipinos should start con-versations on Diversity and Inclusion to mitigate this problem. These findings will help community leaders to develop courses and pro-grams that will help pave the way for Filipinos to effectively assimi-late to a diverse and inclusive Canadian society.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".