MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013061578

Adolescent Refugees’ Judgments of Harm in War and Resettlement Contexts

2019· article· en· W3013061578 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zuhra Teja

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship (California Digital Library) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmRefugeeContext (archaeology)PsychologySituational ethicsSocial psychologyCriminologyWelfarePolitical scienceLawGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Protracted wars in the Middle East have forced millions of people to flee and resettle in Western countries. Adolescents might be most affected by their war and resettlement experiences, yet have received limited attention in developmental research. The purpose of the current study was to determine how younger (12-14-year-olds) and older (17-19-year-olds) adolescent refugees from Syria make judgments about harm in unprovoked and provoked situational contexts. Fifty-nine newcomer Syrian adolescent refugees (30 boys and 29 girls) living in Canada were interviewed about straightforward and complex situations involving harm (i.e., hitting). All participants provided negative evaluations of harm in response to general questions and almost all stated that there should be a law against hitting. The majority of evaluations were stable, meaning not contingent on parental authority, school rules, or common societal practice. All participants in the baseline (unprovoked) condition, and almost all participants in the survival condition provided negative evaluations of harm in Syrian war and Canadian resettlement contexts. The majority of participants provided negative evaluations of harm in retribution conditions, and a small but significant proportion evaluated harm as less acceptable in the resettlement context than in the war context. Negative evaluations elicited moral justifications (i.e., welfare, equality), whereas positive evaluations elicited nonmoral justifications (i.e., personal, authority/rules, and retaliation). The Canadian resettlement context elicited more authority/rules considerations than did the Syrian war context. Younger adolescents were significantly more likely than older adolescents to justify negative evaluations based on authority/rules. Older adolescents were more likely than younger adolescents to provide mixed evaluations for retribution conditions. Significant gender differences were not found. Cultural considerations, social and educational implications, and future directions are discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship (California Digital Library)Same topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207