MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3209084312 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14661876.v1

Indochinese Refugees In Canada: Resettlement Experiences of the Cambodian and Vietnamese Refugees in Toronto

2021· preprint· en· W3209084312 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nhi Phan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Refugees, and Integration
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefugeeVietnameseSettlement (finance)ImmigrationPolitical scienceEthnic groupGender studiesPoliticsSociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Massive resettlement of Cambodian and Vietnamese refugees in Canada started in the late 1970s, following military and political upheaval in Indochina. The Immigration policy Act of 1976 made it easier for the Indochinese refugees to enter the country. Almost four decades after the first arrivals of Indochinese refugees to Canada under unique circumstances, their settlement experiences are poorly understood. Here, I address this shortcoming through a comparative analysis of settlement experiences of the Cambodian and Vietnamese refugees in Canada, particularly probing their “sense of belonging” to the country. In order to evaluate the sense of belonging of the Indochinese refugees, I conducted interviews with 10 participants from each of the two communities. Findings from the interviews indicated highly significant correlations between language proficiency, ethnic segregation, general life satisfaction and the Sense of belonging index. The Vietnamese refugees had a higher sense of belonging to Canada than their Cambodian counterparts.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.270

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0260.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.005
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMigration, Refugees, and Integration→French-language works237,207→