What it means to be a Muslim youth in Canada: a scoping review of empirical studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Our thematic analysis of the academic literature on Canadian Muslim Youth aims to identify and describe the factors which contribute to the construction of identity among Muslim youth in Canada and make some research and policy recommendations to address this issue. In this review, we responded to the following questions: What is the current research evidence for Canadian Muslim Youth identity construction? What are the major themes included in the identified publications? Design/methodology/approach What does it mean to be a Muslim youth in Canada and how do Canadian Muslim youth negotiate and construct their identities in a globally polarized world? Using Arksey and O'Malley's framework (2005), a scoping review of empirical studies published between 2000 and 2021 was conducted to explore the diverse contexts that intersect in the creation of Canadian Muslim youth identity. Findings A thematic analysis of the literature identified five key themes: religiosity, racism and discrimination, parental influence, citizenship and gender that intersect in multiple ways to contribute to the construction of diverse and complex Muslim youth identities. The scoping review highlights a gap in community-based research and the need for a broader range of theoretical perspectives on Muslim youth identity construction, as well as culturally appropriate policies and social work practice models for positive youth development. Originality/value In contemporary Canadian culture, Muslim youth must negotiate and create their own exclusive identity, which justifies the context of what it means to be Canadian and Muslim at the same time. As highlighted in the literature, a number of tensions within the Canadian policy, between the policy and the Muslim tradition and within the Muslim community itself pose challenges in the identity development among Muslim youth. Therefore, It is critical for social work practitioners, researchers and policymakers to consider above mentioned socio-political and religious dimensions while designing, implementing and evaluating youth programs for Muslim communities.
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 | 0.022 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.030 | 0.055 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".