MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319936450 · doi:10.22329/csw.v24i1.7855

Representations of Unwelcomed Children – Public Discussion in Helsingin Sanomat Newspaper about Finnish Children Living in Camp of al-Hol in Eastern Syria in 2019

2023· article· en· W4319936450 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Laura Lagus, Eveliina Heino, Marja Katisko

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Social Work · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNewspaperPublic discourseObligationRepresentation (politics)AsideCritical discourse analysisDiscourse analysisRefugeeSociologyGender studiesPolitical scienceMedia studiesLawPoliticsLinguisticsIdeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we examine the representations of Finnish children living in the al-Hol refugee camp in Eastern Syria. Our data consists of materials published in 2019 in the Helsingin Sanomat, the largest subscription-based newspaper in Finland, which we analyzed using discourse analysis. As a result of our analysis, we identified and named three discourses representing children in al-Hol from different perspectives. These discourses are the victim and threat discourse, the legal discourse, and the problem discourse. In the victim and threat discourse, children were portrayed as both in need of assistance and as a potential security threat in the future both if brought to Finland, but also if they remained in the camp. In the legal discourse, bringing children to Finland was justified as a legal obligation, leaving aside other perspectives related to helping children. In the problem discourse, bringing children to Finland was described as highly problematic. Across all discourses, children were represented as unwelcome. This representation was strengthened by describing children through their mothers, justifying assistance as a necessary evil, and highlighting children’s connections to Isis.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.560

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Social WorkSame topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207