How Rohingya refugee parents support children’s prosocial development in crisis-affected and resettlement contexts: Findings from India and Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We know little about how parents protect and promote children’s prosocial development during humanitarian crises. This qualitative study examined Rohingya refugee parents’ psychosocial perspectives and the processes they use to socialize prosocial values and behaviours in their children. Interviews (descriptive and in-depth qualitative) were conducted with 100 parents living in a refugee settlement in India (n = 100 descriptive; n = 5 in-depth) and 4 parents resettled in a mid-sized Canadian city (n = 4 descriptive; n = 4 in-depth). An inductive, ‘contextualist’ thematic analysis (TA) was conducted on the in-depth interviews to develop three overarching themes: (1) parents’ prosocial values and beliefs; (2) environmental conditions influencing parents’ available pathways for promoting children’s prosocial development; and (3) parents’ prosocial socialization and protection practices. The findings indicate that parents’ prosocial beliefs and contextual factors inform their parenting decisions and practices. Recommendations are provided for enriching parents’ capacity to promote child prosocial development in contexts of adversity.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it