Ubuntu and forced migration: reflections for social work engagement with older refugees in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As an African philosophy, Ubuntu, anchored in our humanness and interconnectedness, holds a lot of promise for social work research and practice with older refugees. It can potentially make communal care and mutual support between older refugees and host communities a lifestyle that can address the peculiar needs of older refugees. This article synthesised literature linking Ubuntu to social work and refugees using a desk review. The reviewed literature illustrates Ubuntu’s significance in social justice, respect for the dignity and worth of refugees and improving their integration into society. Ubuntu was also found to help refugees develop resilience and strength, especially when they support other refugees. It moves away from the pathological view of refugeeism to understanding refugees as people who also provide support. However, despite Ubuntu being a lifestyle in Africa, many Africans seem to have abandoned this, as evidenced by various social issues affecting refugees in Africa, such as xenophobic attacks. This paper makes a case for adopting Ubuntu in social work practice and research with older refugees through the development of communal support systems of care. Journal website: https://ajsw.africasocialwork.net How to reference using ASWNet style: Ekoh P. C. and Warria A. (2023). Ubuntu and forced migration: reflections for social work engagement with older refugees in Canada. African Journal of Social Work, 13(1), 1-11. https://dx.doi.org/10.4314/ajsw.v13i1.1
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.057 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".