Microaggression and everyday resistance in narratives of refugee resettlement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The mental health of resettled refugees is not only affected by the trauma they experience before and while fleeing persecution, but also by experiences during the resettlement process. Drawing on a qualitative study of refugees’ experiences of mental wellbeing in a small Canadian city this paper documents participants’ experiences of microaggression and everyday resistance. In our analysis, we refer to the metaphor of uprooting that is often used to describe the totality of refugee displacement. In our expansion of the metaphor, microaggression re-uproots resettled refugees by challenging their right to be where they are. Using acts of everyday resistance, participants in our sample attempted to set down roots in the resettlement context despite microaggressions. Participants’ acts of everyday resistance are captured under five themes: rejecting victimhood, rejecting burden narratives, ignorance as an explanation, the transience of vulnerability, and setting down roots. This study contributes to the literature that de-emphasizes the vulnerability narrative of refugee mental health by demonstrating the role of personal agency in refugees’ experiences of their own wellbeing.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".