MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Parent-Adolescent Storytelling in Canadian-Arabic Immigrant Families (Part 1): A Grounded Theory

2014· article· en· W50471035 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Lynda M. Ashbourne, Mohammed Faez Baobaid

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Qualitative Report · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsConceptualizationGrounded theoryStorytellingPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyConstructivist grounded theorySocial psychologyContext (archaeology)ImmigrationQualitative researchNarrativeSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interviews with 20 mothers, fathers, adolescent sons and daughters from Arabic immigrant families elicited descriptions of participants’ experiences of storytelling in their families. Constructivist grounded theory analysis of interview data provided an initial conceptualization of intergenerational storytelling during adolescence that both reflects and serves to influence parent-adolescent relationships as well as the broader cultural domain through story content, storytellers’ intentions, and responsive interaction. This preliminary substantive theory presents storytelling in immigrant families during adolescence as relationally grounded, influenced and expressed through a cultural/language “prism,” responsive and active in moving relationships toward or away from connection, and dependent on story content/context as well as the storyteller’s delivery and listener’s response. These findings have implications for extending theoretical conceptualization of family interactions during adolescence beyond conflict, monitoring, and peer influences. In addition, practical implications for supporting and understanding the day-to-day interactions that support parent-adolescent relationships and cultural minority families are highlighted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.332
Threshold uncertainty score0.656

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.430
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Qualitative ReportSame topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207