Understanding the effects of being separated from family on refugees in Australia: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To understand the impact of family separation on refugees living in Australia. METHOD: Thirteen participants with a refugee background and experiencing separation from family participated in a semi-structured qualitative interview. Interviews were coded and a thematic analysis was conducted using NVivo software. RESULTS: Identified themes were organised under four domains. Domain 1 focused on the personal impact of family separation. Themes were the effects on mental health and functioning, driven by incessant worrying about the safety of family and the absence of key attachment figures, the specific effects of having missing family, alterations to self-identity and family dynamics. Domain 2 focused on themes relating to actions taken to find missing family, connect or reunite with separated family. Domain 3 highlighted the coping strategies, support mechanisms and protective factors used by participants. Domain 4 identified core beliefs about the importance of family unity, focusing on security, settlement and a happy future. CONCLUSIONS: Family separation has an enduring effect on the wellbeing of refugees, with key pathways being ongoing fear and insecurity, disrupted social attachments and identity shifts in relation to the future self. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: Refugees separated from or missing family struggle with ongoing stress and adjustment issues.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".