MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037797262 · doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcl369

The Enculturation Experience of Roma Refugees: A Canadian Perspective

2006· article· en· W2037797262 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christine A. Walsh, David Este, Bronwyn M. Krieg

Bibliographic record

VenueThe British Journal of Social Work · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicRomani and Gypsy Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Indigenous Peoples' HealthFirst Nations University of CanadaUniversity of CalgaryNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnculturationRefugeeFocus groupSocial WelfareWelfarePopulationImmigrationSocial workCultural competenceSociologyEconomic growthPolitical sciencePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since 1999, there has been increasing settlement in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, of large numbers of Roma families from Hungary, seeking refugee status. A number of agencies across health, social services, education, immigration, child welfare and justice sectors were concerned about the Roma population’s difficulties within these systems and the ability of these systems to provide effective services to the Roma population. The goal of the Roma Project was to promote deeper understanding of Roma peoples and their culture in order to inform more effective and culturally appropriate service delivery in addressing the needs of the Roma population. Focus group and key informant interviews with Roma community members and service providers were used to assess need in education, health care and social welfare domains. Analysis of the data produced recommendations for best practices in working with the Roma newcomers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.432

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0480.013
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.339 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe British Journal of Social WorkSame topicRomani and Gypsy StudiesFrench-language works237,207