MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3216897299 · doi:10.32920/ihtp.v1i3.1467

The mental health of immigrant and refugee children in Canada: A scoping review

2021· review· en· W3216897299 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Nazish, Olga Petrovskaya, Bukola Salami

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Health Trends and Perspectives · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefugeeImmigrationMental healthEthnic groupPopulationMedicinePsychologyPolitical sciencePsychiatryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: First- and second-generation immigrant children under 15 years of age make up 37.5% of the total population of children in Canada. Immigrant children aged 10-19, irrespective of their immigration status, face more ethnic victimization at school and in their neighborhoods. By 2036, the number of immigrant children in Canada is predicted to increase by 49%. Method: A well-established Arksey and O’Malley’s five-stage methodological framework was applied to conduct this scoping review. This project reviewed the existing research literature on factors affecting immigrant and refugee children's mental health in Canada. Results: The mental health of immigrant and refugee children can be viewed as a combined product of personal, social, cultural, economic, and pre- and post-migratory factors. Immigrant and refugee children’s experiences of migration can be stressful and destabilizing. Service providers are not well trained and often cannot grasp the circumstances of immigrant and refugee children and families, which consequently disengages them from required treatment services and follow-up care. Conclusion: Reflection of diversity and inclusivity in mental health policies can influence actions in a primary care setting and reduce accessibility gaps and barriers that affect immigrant and refugee children in Canada. Keywords: child; Canada; immigrant; mental health; refugee

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.384 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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