MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037379240 · doi:10.1353/ces.2020.0008

Creating New Possibilities: Service Provider Perspectives on the Settlement and Integration of Syrian Refugee Youth in a Canadian Community

2020· article· en· W3037379240 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Lirondel Cheyne-Hazineh

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian ethnic studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefugeeSettlement (finance)Service providerPsychological resiliencePolitical scienceEconomic growthMental healthPublic relationsService (business)BusinessMedicinePsychologySocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From 2015 to 2017, Canada responded to the Syrian refugee crisis by welcoming over 40,000 refugees from Syria. In this 2018 study, ten service providers in the mid-sized urban community of Waterloo Region participated in semi-structured interviews, the aim of which was to learn about the ongoing needs of Syrian refugee youth. Findings indicate that 2-3 years post-arrival, these youth were still early in the settlement and integration process and despite youth's efforts and the efforts of service providers and others, systemic challenges, particularly in education and employment, continued to be key concerns. Participants identified obstacles such as segregated classes and limited resources in the secondary school system and a variety of barriers to employment that youth faced while still learning the language and Canadian culture. Social engagement and mental health were also identified as areas for enhancement and, at the same time, were areas where youth often showed considerable resilience. The study documents the need for ongoing investment in Syrian refugee youth and continued advocacy at community and larger systems levels.

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)0.005
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0540.016
Scholarly communication0.0100.003
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.210
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations20
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian ethnic studiesSame topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207