Activities and programmes that support the emotional wellness and well-being of refugees, immigrants and other newcomers within settlement agencies: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Obstacles to successful settlement-social isolation, language hardship, issues with employment, housing questions, transportation, barriers to health, education and government service access-all potentially play a role in emerging physical and mental health problems. The objective of this scoping review is to map the available evidence in order to provide an overview of the services and resources offered to refugees, immigrants and other newcomers by settlement agencies to support emotional wellness and well-being. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The protocol to be followed for this scoping review is based on the Joanna Briggs Institute to provide a map of the current and emergent literature, and examine the extent, range and nature of this literature. The proposed scoping review will also identify the gaps in research pertaining to the emotional wellness of refugees, immigrants and other newcomers as well as summarise and disseminate research findings and provide direction for future reviews. Key databases for this scoping review include APA PsycINFO, Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature Plus, Academic Search Complete, and Education Research Complete. The database search start and end dates for this scoping review will be from inception to July 2020. The article searches will take place between August and October 2020. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics is not required as the research will not involve human or animal subjects. The research is a scoping review, and thus relies on published and grey literature studies and documents. The findings of this proposed scoping review will be disseminated through future publications as well as presentations to relevant stakeholders, including immigrant serving agencies. We anticipate that this scoping review will identify gaps in research pertaining to the emotional wellness of refugees, immigrants and other newcomers. The results of this review will be the first comprehensive recent survey of emotional wellness practices employed by settlement agencies.
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 | 0.097 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.013 |
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".