Social services for immigrants and refugees to Canada: A systematic review of the evidence on provision, management, and outcomes of available services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Canada’s population is composed of a diverse group of people, approximately 20% of whom are immigrants.(1) In fact, it is projected that by 2025, immigrants will be the only source of population growth in the country.(2) Moreover, Canada has provided asylum to over 160 000 refugees,(3) with more arriving every year as the number and intensity of global conflicts rise. In 2010, $53 million was cut from Citizenship and Immigration Canada’s (CIC) budget for immigrant settlement services, $44 million of which was from Ontario funding, a primary destination for new immigrants to Canada.(4) A budget cut of this magnitude proved to be disastrous for organizations working with the immigrant and refugee community; multiple organizations lost funding, resulting in a large number of service cuts, loss of physical assets, and hundreds of lost jobs.(5) This research seeks to answer the following question: What services are available for immigrants and refugees to Canada and how are they provided, managed, and evaluated ? The question consists of three components that are examined through a systematic review. 1) What specific social services are available to immigrants and refugees in Canada? 2) How are services determined, funded, organized, and governed, and by whom? 3) How are outcomes for those who access the services measured and assessed? Methodology: This study is a systematic review of the published literature using 5 Health Science ( CINAHL, Global Health, Medline, Ovid HealthSTAR, PsycINFO ) and 2 Social Science databases ( PAIS, Sociological Abstracts ). A comprehensive search strategy was used and included the following key words: ‘immigra*’, ‘emigra*’, ‘migrant*’, ‘refugee*’, ‘social’, ‘service*’, and ‘Canada’. In order to be included in the systematic review, studies must focus on social services for immigrants and/or refugees in Canada, and must be published 1995 or later, in English. The systematic review will analyze both quantitative and qualitative evidence published in the key selected databases. In addition, literature on immigrant and refugee social services in other countries and specific grey literature will be consulted to situate the research in its current context. Findings & Conclusions: Results pending completion of the study.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".