Immigrant Settlement Work in Canada: Limits and Possibilities for Professionalization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article dépeint l’émergence du travail d’établissement auprès des immigrants au Canada et explore les perspectives d'avenir de celui‐ci en tant que profession. À l'heure actuelle, le travail d'établissement comprend trois formes de pratique : (1) un travail aux contours flous; (2) une spécialité du travail social; et (3) une profession en émergence. Cet article soutient que le travail d'établissement aura probablement un avenir professionnel. Cependant, la question de savoir s'il devient une profession indépendante dépend en grande partie du régime de financement du secteur des services d'établissement. Si le régime de financement fédéral et à court terme continue d'exister, le travail d'établissement cherchera encore sa définition au sein du domaine général du travail de service social. S'il émerge un régime de financement provincial et à long terme, les perspectives d'un travail d'établissement professionnel et indépendant s'amélioreront. This paper portrays the emergence of Canadian settlement work with immigrants and explores its prospects as an occupation. Currently, settlement work includes three forms of practice: (1) a loose occupation; (2) a specialty of social work; and (3) an emerging profession. The paper argues that settlement work is likely to have a professional future. However, whether or not it will become an independent profession depends largely on the funding regime of the settlement service sector. If the existing federal and short‐term funding regime continues, settlement work will still be trying to define itself in the broader field of social service work. If a provincial and long‐term funding regime emerges, prospects for an independent professional settlement work will improve.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".