MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3184290622

Leisure and immigrant integration: a systematic review of the literature and analysis around the multiculturalism and interculturalism paradigms in the Canadian context.

2019· review· en· W3184290622 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Romain Roult, Barbara White, J. M. Adjizian, L. Morel-Michaud, Daniel J. Auger

Bibliographic record

VenueLoisir et Société / Society and Leisure · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterculturalismMulticulturalismImmigrationContext (archaeology)SociologyGender studiesPolitical scienceHistoryPedagogyLawArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The issue of immigrant integration is at the heart of many debates within contemporary industrialized societies. It has often been questioned and studied from the point of view of work, education, and health and social services. However, leisure is increasingly seen as a factor of integration for these immigrant populations. Thus, based on a systematic review of scientific literature (n = 63), this study allows us to sum up the current knowledge with regard to this issue. Beyond the fact that leisure is undeniably a factor in the social integration of immigrants, this study highlights the numerous obstacles and constraints that these populations experience when it comes to leisure, while, at the same time, emphasizing the benefits of the practice of recreational activities. This study has also shown the importance of considering the social dynamics between majority and minority groups with relation to the paradigms and approaches in which they move (multiculturalism and interculturalism, in particular).

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)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.834
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0130.020
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueLoisir et Société / Society and Leisure→Same topicRecreation, Leisure, Wilderness Management→French-language works237,207→