War‐affected children's approach to resettlement: Implications for child and family services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, the resettlement of thousands of war‐affected children every year poses new challenges to child and family services. Since young people arrive from multiple contexts either alone or accompanied by family or caregiver(s), after having endured significant trauma, stress, and adversity, conventional approaches to service delivery are seldom adequate. Drawing on anthropology of childhood literature, this paper calls for increased inclusion of young people's experiences and perspectives in reconfiguring psychosocial services. Interactive focus groups and in‐depth interviews with youth from war‐affected countries and service providers in Québec uncovered the ways that war alters family and how young people rely on both formal and informal support systems during resettlement. Young people and service providers reflected on inadequacies of current services in meeting the complex needs of youth while service professionals reported being ill‐equipped to support war‐affected youth. This paper posits that perspectives from the anthropology of childhood are critical in liaising between youth and professionals to provide services that build on a socioecological view of development, provide healing, and recognize the diversity of children and families’ kinship ties.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".