The Cultural Competency of Parenting Support Programs for Newcomer Immigrant Parents in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on concepts from the psychology of acculturation and cross-cultural theory, this qualitative research study involves an interpretative approach to parenting programs for newcomers in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. This explorative study applies a document analysis method (Bowen, 2009), and aims to identify principles and elements of cultural competency (Sue & Sue, 2013), cultural safety (Ball, 2008; DeSouza, 2008), cultural humility (Tervalon & Murray-Garcia, 1998; DeFehr, Adan, Barros, Rodriguez, & Wai, 2012), and linguistic competence (DeSouza, 2008) in parenting programs that are currently delivered in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. This study will analyze four well-established parenting programs from government and non-government agencies: Nobody’s Perfect, Parent-Child Mother Goose, Hippy, and Parent Support Circles. During immigration and resettlement, immigrant families face situational and systemic barriers and newcomer parents often struggle with changes in traditional gender roles and conflictive intergenerational dynamics related to resettlement, which is detrimental to their parental role. This research aims add to and deepen the understanding of cultural competency/cultural safety within parenting programs and resources used to support immigrant parents and their families.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".