MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2967474159 · doi:10.58464/2155-5834.1370

The ripple effects of US immigration policy on refugee children: A Canadian perspective

2019· article· en· W2967474159 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shazeen Suleman, Ripudaman Minhas, Tony Barozzino

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Research on Children Informing Policy for Children at Risk · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefugeeImmigrationPerspective (graphical)EnforcementImmigration policyPolitical scienceMental healthPlaintiffImmigration detentionCriminologyDemographic economicsEconomic growthDevelopment economicsSociologyMedicineLawEconomicsPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since 2016, an estimated 40,000 individuals have crossed the Canadian/U.S. border, seeking asylum, impacted by changing U.S policies on immigration.3 Some come from countries affected by the U.S. immigration ban, while others come as the result of failed refugee claims, worsening discrimination and immigration enforcement. In this perspective piece, we outline how domestic U.S policy can have rippling effects internationally, focusing on Canada. From direct health impacts from mental health and trauma, to limited access to health care, the impact on housing and employment, and finally the subtle but poignant shift in Canadian values, we argue that the impacts of U.S immigration policy are not only felt domestically, but globally. Finally, we seek to identify ways in which child health advocates and policymakers alike can support the well being of refugee claimant children across both borders.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.174
Threshold uncertainty score0.958

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0260.014
Scholarly communication0.0130.004
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.359 · 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Research on Children Informing Policy for Children at RiskSame topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207