Successful Refugee Cohabitation With Host Families: A Concept Analysis and Model Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This concept analysis aims to address the gap in knowledge regarding the concept of successful refugee cohabitation with host families. It seeks to develop a conceptual model that integrates holistic nursing and healthcare practices into refugee cohabitation settings to enhance refugee well-being. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using Walker and Avant's methodology for concept analysis. Findings: Successful refugee cohabitation with host families concept characterized by peaceful coexistence, power dynamics, hospitality, and cultural tolerance. Antecedents include refugee shelter needs, societal acceptance, humanitarian solidarity, and legal support. Consequences include refugee inclusion and integration, societal cohesion, psychological well-being, and refugee–host acceptance. Conclusions: Successful refugee cohabitation is defined as a private hosting arrangement that embodies shared living spaces and peaceful coexistence amid conflict or crises, fostering resilience and support for displaced individuals by local citizens. It combines hospitality, balanced power, and cultural tolerance, driven by refugee needs for shelter and a commitment to successful refugee settlement and integration. This hosting arrangement promotes societal development and cohesion, economic growth, psychological well-being, and foster inclusion and intergroup tolerance. The integration of holistic nursing principles into refugee cohabitation practices can foster more inclusive and healthy communities.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".