Building Collective Resilience : The Role of Refugee Informal Support Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the arrival of 52,000 Syrian refugees to Canada in recent years and the challenges in adapting to their new life, a better understanding of informal support networks used by refugees will help enlighten governments and policy-makers regarding integration. This paper explores thedifferent informal interpersonal relationships experienced by Syrian refugees in British Columbiaand the roles each plays in building collective resilience. Fieldwork was conducted over threemonths in British Columbia and included semi-structured interviews with 26 former Syrian refugees and eight interviews with non-refugees. The research found six avenues of informal support thatprovide different functional benefits to former refugees and improve emotional well-being, culturaladjustment, and integration. The findings also show how experiences of trauma bond people into a shared group identity and how this further incites alt ruism and collective assistance, thusstrengthening the social group and building collective resilience. However, the findings also revealthat relying on any one informal support systems too much can be detrimental to psychologicalwell-being and slow integration. The implications of former refugees’ connections with informal support networks 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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".