Migrant families with children in Montreal, Canada and transnational family support: a protocol for a focused ethnography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is a gap in research regarding transnational family support (emotional, practical, spiritual, informational and financial) as a resource for migrant families with children. From the perspective of migrant families and their family back home, the objectives of this study are to (1) identify the types and ways that transnational family support is provided to migrant families in Canada; (2) assess for patterns in the data that may suggest variations in the nature of this support (eg, by migration status, time in Canada, children's ages, family circumstances) and over time and (3) explore the impact (positive and negative) in receiving and providing transnational support, respectively. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A focused ethnography is planned. We will recruit 25-35 migrant families with children with different migration histories (eg, economic or forced migration from a mix of countries) and family circumstances (eg, single parenthood, families living with extended family, families with children in the home country) living in Montreal, Canada. Families will be recruited through community organisations. Data will be gathered via semistructured interviews. To capture the perspective of those providing support, family members in the home country for each migrant family will also be recruited and interviewed through communication technology (eg, WhatsApp). Data collection will also involve observation of 'transnational interactions' between family members in Montreal and those back home. Data will be thematically analysed and results reported in a narrative form with an in-depth description of each theme. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the sciences and health research ethics committee at the University of Montreal. Study results will be shared through traditional forums (publication, conference presentations) and via other knowledge dissemination/exchange activities (eg, 'lunch and learn conferences' and seminars) through the research team's research centres and networks to reach front-line care-providers who interface directly with migrant families.
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 | 0.032 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.003 |
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".