A Report on the Impact of Immigration Detention on the Health and Well-being of Refugees & Asylum Seekers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The extended periods that some asylum seekers experience in immigration detention potentially compromise their mental health and physical well-being. This compromise is associated with the prevailing culture and conditions within some immigration detention facilities in Western countries, such as Australia, Canada and Germany. This review aims to synthesise the findings of studies that report on the experiences of refugees and asylum seekers while they have been held in immigration detention. A meta-ethnographic approach guided the synthesis following the eMERGe meta-ethnography reporting guidance structure. Three common storyline metaphors were identified from the synthesis of findings of seven qualitative studies: (1) treating like criminals, jail-like, prison-like, and treated like animals; (2) killing your mind and torturing your mind; and (3) feelings of hopelessness, worry, despair and fear. The findings of this review suggest that the culture and the practices of immigration detention that impact refugees and asylum seekers who are detained for sometimes extended periods need to be transformed. The time that people are held in detention and the context for that detention needs urgent review. While immigration detention is legislated and enacted differently in the countries where the included studies were located, Government policies should consider alternative approaches such as community detention. Regular monitoring of immigration detention practices by external bodies should be mandated, and ongoing staff training for workers in detention facilities should be instituted to ensure that refugees and asylum seekers are treated fairly and with dignity when detained.
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 | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".