MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388522101 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0293656

Service access experiences of immigrant and refugee caregivers of autistic children in Canada: A scoping review

2023· review· en· W4388522101 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Lina Casale, Stephen J. Gentles, Janet McLaughlin, Margaret Schneider

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaWilfrid Laurier University
KeywordsAutismRefugeeImmigrationService (business)Service providerMedicinePsychologyNursingPsychiatryPolitical scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Primary caregivers are the main mediators of care for children with an autism diagnosis in Canada, and the navigation process to gain access to autism-related services is known to be a major burden. These challenges to service access are compounded for newcomers to Canada, which include immigrants and refugees. The purpose of this scoping review is to describe the available research on Canadian newcomer caregiver experiences navigating and accessing autism-related services. After a systematic search and screening process, 28 studies were included. Data were extracted regarding the populations, study aims, and themes reported. Included studies characterized barriers and facilitators to service access and navigation specific to immigrants, while limited information was available for refugees. Based on the existing literature, the authors provide recommendations for possible research approaches, populations to include, and themes to examine in future research to promote health equity in Canadian autism service access.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.180
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0150.026
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207