Systematic Review of Integration and Radicalization Prevention Programs for Migrants in the US, Canada, and Europe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: International migration processes are some of the most important events of our time. Migrating implies a broad range of factors that affect integration, and which may be linked to radicalization. Host countries use different methods for the integration of migrants. The aim of this systematic review is to analyze intervention programs that aim at promoting social integration and preventing the radicalization of migrants, with the objective of studying actions carried out in the US, Canada, and Europe to this effect. Method: Worldwide known bibliographic databases (PsyCINFO, Sociological Abstracts, Psycarticles, Psychology Database, Medline, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar) were used to search studies published before January 2019 and which analyzed integration or radicalization prevention programs with migrants. Results: A total of 601 studies were screened, from which 18 met the inclusion criteria. The analysis of programs addressed to migrant women points to a decrease in loneliness and depression and an increase of migrants' perception of social support and self-esteem. Programs carried out in schools and families improve children's knowledge of their culture and that of others, increase their feelings of inclusion, and reduce their aggressiveness, stress, and anxiety. Language programs promote communication and employment search, as well as improve migrants' quality of life. One of the most effective activities included in these programs is to connect recently arrived migrants with local population and/or long-term residents. The latter act as mentors and teachers, helping recently arrived migrants understand resources and to be more integrated in the new country, as well as reducing discrimination from the local population. Conclusions: The review concluded the importance of intervention programs for integration, migrants' quality of life, prevention of extreme behaviors, and intercultural cohabitation. Future programs must be more detailed regarding participants' information and carry out more comprehensive assessments.
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 | 0.008 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".