MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2992785406 · doi:10.25071/1920-7336.38606

Adult Refugee Learners with Limited Literacy: Needs and Effective Responses

2014· article· en· W2992785406 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
John Benseman

Bibliographic record

VenueRefuge Canada s Journal on Refuge · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and experiences of immigrants and refugees
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefugeeDocumentationPsychologyPedagogyAdult educationLiteracyMedical educationMathematics educationMedicinePolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adult refugees with limited education are a distinctive learner group with substantial and distinctive educational, social, and psychological needs. Working with these learners is a highly specialized activity, requiring high levels of educational skill and commitment. With a paucity of original research available about this group of learners, this study provides a systematic documentation of their distinctive needs as well as effective educational strategies for use with these learners. The study involved interviews with 36 adult refugees, two program coordinators, five course teachers, and six bilingual tutors from a community-based program in New Zealand. The challenge of working with these learners arises due not only to their experiences as refugees, but also as learners with minimal or no edu- cational experience. Their progress depends on a skilful development of “learning to learn,” acquiring basic lit- eracy skills, personal confidence and transfer of these skills to everyday life outside the classroom.

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)0.003
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations86
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRefuge Canada s Journal on RefugeSame topicEducation and experiences of immigrants and refugeesFrench-language works237,207