The relationship between perceived discrimination, intergenerational homogeneity and ethnic identity among Chinese and South Asians in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine which ethnic groups resist assimilation i.e. maintain their own culture and which ethnic groups do not maintain their culture in Canada. Since Canada is a multicultural country and has an official multiculturalism policy, which supports that ethnic group should maintain their culture in Canada. It was hypothesized that ethnic groups with stronger intergenerational (language, religion, ethnic ancestry) homogeneity and stronger perception of discrimination will have stronger ethnic identity. Stronger ethnic identity will represent resistance to assimilate in the host country. Data from Ethnic Diversity Survey (2005) was used to examine two major ethnic groups South Asian and Chinese in Canada. Methods used for analysis were ANOVA and regression. Results show there is a relationship between perceived discrimination and strength of ethnic identity for the whole sample. Also, between the two ethnic groups, South Asians perceived discrimination and had a stronger ethnic identity as compared to Chinese. For the overall sample, a strong linear association was also found between perceived discrimination and intergenerational language, religion and ancestry homogeneity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".