MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3187789707 · doi:10.32920/ihtp.v1i2.1437

Perspectives of service agencies on factors influencing immigrants’ mental health in Alberta, Canada

2021· article· en· W3187789707 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Dominic A. Alaazi, Salima Meherali, Esperanza Díaz, Kathleen Hegadoren, Neelam Saleem Punjani, Bukola Salami

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Health Trends and Perspectives · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersPolicyWise for Children and Families
KeywordsMental healthImmigrationSociocultural evolutionPsychological interventionSocioeconomic statusIntersectionalityFocus groupService providerAffect (linguistics)Qualitative researchPsychologyService (business)Political scienceGerontologySociologyMedicineEnvironmental healthBusinessGender studiesPsychiatryPopulationSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Newcomers to Canada experience resettlement challenges that affect their mental well-being. Guided by an intersectionality theoretical framework, we sought the perspectives of immigrant service agencies on factors influencing immigrants’ mental health in Alberta, Canada. Data were collected by means of qualitative interviews and focus groups with immigrant service providers. Our data analysis identified seven themes – precarious immigration status, employment discrimination, social isolation, socioeconomic pressures, sociocultural stress, gender and age-related vulnerabilities, and lack of appropriate mental health supports – reflecting the major intersecting determinants of immigrants’ mental health. We propose policy interventions for addressing the mental health vulnerabilities of immigrants.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.493

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0270.008
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Health Trends and PerspectivesSame topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207