Canadian social workers’ attitudes toward immigrants with different legal statuses in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary This study contributes to the ongoing efforts to address systemic inequality within social work by examining Canadian social workers’ attitudes toward immigrants who are permanent residents (PR), refugees, temporary residents (TR), or undocumented immigrants. Using a cross-sectional design with a convenience sample (n = 653), we explore how social workers’ attitudes toward immigrants vary in relation to (a) respondents’ demographics, (b) contact with immigrants, (c) perceptions of equal opportunities among immigrants, (d) perceptions of deservingness for immigrants with different legal statuses, and (e) the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on these attitudes. Findings While Canadian social workers generally express positive attitudes toward immigrants, there is a slightly stronger endorsement for PR and refugees to access public services compared to nonstatus (NS) immigrants and TR. Social workers who identify as conservative or have limited contact with immigrants are more likely to perceive NS immigrants as potential criminal threats or burdens on the healthcare system. Significantly, a majority of respondents feel that their social work training inadequately prepares them to work effectively with immigrants. Applications Canadian social workers advocate for principles of diversity, inclusion, and commitment to social justice. However, perceptions regarding which immigrants deserve access to social services vary based on legal status, suggesting a limitation in social workers’ professional mandate. The study discusses implications for social work education and training, emphasizing the need to address and unsettle systemic racism within the profession.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".