Building community: Connecting refugee and Canadian families.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This article reports on an investigation of factors that promote or impede the development of social cohesion in communities receiving refugee newcomers largely of Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) backgrounds. This community-based research was completed in collaboration with a community partner-a settlement agency dedicated to supporting people with immigrant and refugee backgrounds. METHOD: Interviews were conducted with refugee newcomers, professionals working with refugee populations, individuals involved in private sponsorship of refugees, and long-term community residents. RESULTS: Results focus on the essential relational and contextual issues to consider when designing a program to build social connections. Together, the findings suggest the value of trying to replicate how relationships form organically, the need to collaborate across systems, and the importance of addressing societal narratives about how newcomers are perceived. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations regarding the process of creating a community program are offered. These findings will be shared with a range of stakeholders to cocreate and implement a new program for enhancing social cohesion in our community. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".