Ethnic Identity and Quality of Life in Emerging Adulthood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the relation between ethnic identity and quality of life in a sample of Canadian emerging adults. Emerging adulthood is characterized as a period of change and exploration, particularly relevant to ethnic identity exploration (Arnett, 2000, 2004). This age group is applicable to developing ethnic identity in minoritized individuals. Ethnic identity plays a protective role and bolsters positive outcomes for young adults (Phinney et al., 1993; Sellers et al., 2006; Tajfel, 1981; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2002). However, the association between ethnic identity and how individuals perceive their lives holistically – according to the World Health Organization’s (WHO, 2012) definition of quality of life – has infrequently been evaluated, and when it has, authors often administer brief versions of the questionnaire (e.g., Adedeji et al., 2022). Further, the sociocultural factors underlying the association between ethnic identity and positive outcomes would benefit from further investigation. To fill this gap, the present study used an archival dataset from 2014-2015 consisting of 300 undergraduate students aged 17 to 25. The participants completed a questionnaire battery that assessed ethnic identity, quality of life, acculturation, generation status, perceived parental acculturation status, and peer contacts. Based on an analytic sample of 262 participants, findings underscored the significance of heritage cultural retention, mainstream cultural adoption, and perceived parental preservation for ethnic identity. Analyses also showed the importance of these factors, along with contact with same-ethnic and Canadian peers, for ethnic identity and well-being measures. Mediation analyses emphasized the importance of heritage cultural retention and same-ethnic peer contact for the protective role of ethnic identity for life satisfaction and integrated quality of life.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".