MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999177398 · doi:10.1093/jrs/fez024

Integrating Refugee Children and Youth: A Scoping Review of English and German Literature

2019· review· en· W2999177398 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Pritchard, Débora B. Maehler, Steffen Pötzschke, Howard Ramos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Refugee Studies · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefugeeGermanScope (computer science)Political scienceForced migrationCommissionEconomic growthLawGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The United Nations High Commission for Refugees reports that more than half of the 65 million refugees and displaced people identified worldwide are under the age of 18. For this reason, researchers, practitioners and policymakers need to understand the consequences of forced migration on the integration of refugee children and youth in receiving countries. A first step to do that is to scope out the state of current research on these issues and identify possible gaps. To that end, the article offers a scoping review of peer-reviewed English and German academic articles on refugee children and youth’s integration over a 20-year period. The review finds: little consensus on the definitions of ‘children’ or ‘youth’; most studies focus on girls and boys that are between 12 and 19 years old; there is a focus on refugees landing in developed countries; and there is a lack of longitudinal and quantitative studies.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0170.016
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.380 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations37
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Refugee StudiesSame topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207