MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3113964781 · doi:10.15353/joci.v16i0.3473

Refugees and social media in a digital society

2020· article· en· W3113964781 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sasha Anderson, Marguerite Daniel

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Community Informatics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefugeeSocial mediaSocial connectednessQualitative researchPublic relationsPsychological interventionSociologyPolitical scienceSocial psychologyPsychologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The proliferation of social media-based initiatives aimed at asylum seekers and refugees in recent years is evidence of growing interest in the potential of social media for delivering interventions and messages to refugee populations in host countries. However, surprisingly little is currently known about how refugees routinely use and incorporate social media into their everyday lives in host countries, and their motivations for doing so. The aim of the study reported in this paper was to explore how and why young refugees living in Norway use social media in their everyday lives, to identify capabilities associated with this use, and to make connections with well- being. The researchers adopted a qualitative approach, undertaking in-depth interviews with eight young refugees and two key informants involved in running social media sites aimed at refugees. Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach (1987) was used to frame the study and guide the analysis of findings. Findings indicated that participants’ main motivations for using social media were communication, access to information, and learning. Analysis of their reported achievements suggested that social media offered five related capabilities which could have an important role in advancing well-being: effective communication; social connectedness; participation in learning opportunities; access to information; and expression of self. Other findings, such as differences in approach to using social media (‘active’ and ‘passive’ use) are discussed. Although all participants used social media and recognised its importance to their lives, variations in the way they approached and valued it suggest that providers need to consider these factors when using it as a tool to engage refugees.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Community InformaticsSame topicSocial Media and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207