Resilience Mechanisms and Coping Strategies for Forcibly Displaced Youth: An Exploratory Rapid Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: The global escalation of conflict, violence, and human rights violations sets a pressing backdrop for examining the resilience of forcibly displaced youth (FDY) in Canada. This study aims to unpack the multifaceted challenges and resilience mechanisms of FDY, focusing on their health, well-being, and integration into host communities. It seeks to identify current models of resilience, understand the factors within each model, and highlight gaps and limitations. Methodology: Using a university librarian-supported structured search strategy, this exploratory rapid review searched literature from Ovid Medline and open-source databases, published in English between January 2019 and January 2024, that fit specific inclusion criteria. The eligible articles (N = 12 out of 4096) were charted and analyzed by two student researchers with the Principal Investigator (PI). Charted data were analyzed thematically. Results: The selected studies captured diverse geographical perspectives, resilience models (such as Ungar’s ecological perspective and Masten’s resilience developmental models), as well as protective and promotive frameworks. Key findings indicate the complexity of resilience influenced by individual, familial, societal, and cultural factors. Each model offers insights into the dynamic interplay of these influences on FDY’s resilience. However, these models often fall short of addressing the nuances of cultural specificity, the impact of trauma, and the intersectionality of FDY’s identities. Conclusions: Recognizing the diverse and evolving nature of FDY’s coping mechanisms, this study advocates for a culturally appropriate approach to resilience that integrates an intersectionality framework of individual attributes and culturally sensitive models.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".