Bibliographic record
Abstract
This mixed methods study investigated the acculturation status and wellbeing of a sample of first-generation immigrants to Canada. The participants were among students taking an Introductory Psychology course at a Canadian university. Interviews were conducted to collect demographic data on the participants, as well as their views on their experience of their country of origin and their current experience in Canada. In addition, their retrospective ratings of their subjective wellbeing before they left their country of origin, as well as their current ratings of their wellbeing in Canada were collected using the Personal Wellbeing Index (PWI) (International Wellbeing Group, 2005). T-test comparisons between the retrospective ratings of the participants prior to immigrating and their current ratings in Canada on the PWI indicated significantly higher levels of satisfaction in the domains of standard of living, achievement in life , personal safety and future security since moving to Canada. The qualitative interview data was reviewed to determine the acculturation status of the participants. The comparison of the PWI ratings between participants in the integrated and assimilated categories found that those categorized as integrated rated themselves more satisfied across all of the life domains as well as on life as a whole although the difference was significant only for the personal relationships domain. While this study was based on a very small sample it does point the way to a further research with possible policy implications.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".