The Capabilities of Family and Friends: How Nepali Immigrants to Canada Experience and Overcome Digital Inequalities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation investigates how very recent, recent, and established immigrants who use e-government service platforms in Canada experience and circumvent digital inequalities. Employing a Capabilities Approach perspective, this study focuses specifically on the challenges encountered by very recent, recent, and established Nepali immigrants to Canada in using federal-, provincial-, and municipal-level e-government service platforms. To meet this objective, an explanatory sequential design mixed-methods approach involving a survey with 261 respondents and five focus group meetings with 25 Nepali immigrants to Canada was used to gather the requisite data. In contrast with dominant narratives in much digital divide literature, the findings revealed no statistically significant differences in the use of e-government service platforms by very recent, recent, and established Nepali immigrants other than very recent immigrants were found to be using the federal-level e-government service platform more frequently than their recent and established immigrant counterparts. The lack of observable differences between the two groups was found to be linked to the participants' reliance on their social support networks of family and friends who provide the material and immaterial resources needed to mitigate the effects of digital inequalities. The implications of these unexpected findings are important for understanding the evolving on-the-ground dynamics with which immigrants must contend and, specifically, how their lived experiences contrast with stereotypical perceptions and understandings of their encounters with digital inequalities. The findings also contribute to advancing the knowledge both in terms of theory and practice. At the level of theory, the findings suggest the presence of two conversion factors — social support networks, and perceptions of convenience — that up to now have not received much attention in the Capabilities Approach literature. At the level of practice, the findings suggest a need to reconsider the ways in which the ubiquity of ICT devices and the pervasiveness of Internet connections along with changing immigration criteria are contributing to a transformation in how very recent, recent, and established immigrants experience digital inequalities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".