Refugee community organizations in<scp>C</scp>anada: From the margins to the mainstream? A challenge and opportunity for social workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various waves of asylum seekers and resettled refugees arriving in C anada since the 1980s reflect the eruption of war and ethnic conflicts in parts of A frica, Central A merica, and S outh E ast A sia. Contrary to long‐established immigrant communities such as the G reeks, I talians, and P ortuguese, these newcomers have had to fend for themselves and develop their own support networks, leading to new forms of organizing and to the formation of refugee community organizations ( RCO s). This article discusses the findings of a 2008–2011 study on RCO s in C anada, specifically in M ontréal and Winnipeg. The objective of the study was to understand the context in which RCO s have developed, the populations they serve, and the role they play in their ethnic communities. Working within the RCO paradigm, we analyze the creation of these organizations, contrast findings with research done in the UK , and raise issues for social work practice. Key Practitioner Message: ● Innovative research in Canada documenting refugee community organizations gives fresh insight regarding community organizing practice; ● Documents the situation of asylum seekers and refugees on an individual and a collective basis in terms of needs; ● Focuses on the necessity of building bridges with refugee organizations to bring them into the mainstream .
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".