MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400406979 · doi:10.32920/ihtp.v4i1.1936

Assessing the impact of COVID-19 on Toronto's Spanish-speaking Latin American population: Qualitative study

2024· article· en· W4400406979 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Irma Molina, Sarah Sanford, Raúl Oyuela Vargas, Brenda Roche, Frank Sirotich

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Health Trends and Perspectives · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsWellesley InstituteCanadian Mental Health Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLatin AmericansPandemicImmigrationRefugeePopulationQualitative researchHealth careHealth equityCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Political scienceEconomic growthSociologyGender studiesGerontologyGeographyMedicineDemographySocial scienceDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has intensified pre-existing health, social, and economic disparities in Canada, particularly affecting racialized, immigrant, refugee, and newcomer communities. While existing research indicates that Latin Americans have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, questions remain about why this group faces greater risk and worse health and other outcomes compared with the rest of the population. Despite knowledge of inequities in Toronto and elsewhere, research remains limited on the perspectives and experiences of specific communities throughout the pandemic. Methods: This qualitative research focuses on the experiences of Spanish-speaking Latin Americans in Toronto who contracted COVID-19, had family members and friends who were sick from the virus, and/or provided services to Latin Americans in the city during the pandemic. Results: The study highlights challenges related to informal caregiving, language barriers in accessing healthcare, digital inequities, and difficulties faced by individuals with precarious immigration status. Conclusion: Understanding the experiences of Spanish-speaking Latin Americans in Toronto can help identify necessary support and services to address these inequities in a post-pandemic scenario.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.203
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.564
Teacher spread0.439 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Health Trends and PerspectivesSame topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207