MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4243121743 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14646669

Barriers to Social Inclusion that Affect Somali Youth in Toronto, 2005

2021· preprint· en· W4243121743 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Allison D. Lawrence

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiaspora, migration, transnational identity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSomaliInclusion (mineral)RecreationSociologyFocus groupRacismSocial exclusionPsychologyAffect (linguistics)Social psychologyGender studiesPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To identify barriers to social inclusion faced by Somali youth living in Toronto, focus group discussions were held with 21 Somali youth, parents of Somali youth, and community service providers. Qualitative analysis of the data revealed that participants shared (1) dealing with racism and discrimination, (2) awareness of the depressed economic status of their community, and (3) relying on their own community for services and support. The results showed that social exclusion was experienced in education, during the process of seeking employment and in accessing recreation services. The extent to which such social inclusion was experienced was gauged using the Laidlaw Foundation framework, which includes the dimensions of: valued recognition, human development, involvement and engagement, proximity and material well-being. Using such measures, lived experiences were meaningfully categorized for analysis. Participants exhibited love and respect for the culture and values they share and expressed readiness to educate and inform others about the traditions that shape their lives.

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 score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDiaspora, migration, transnational identityFrench-language works237,207