MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404925763 · doi:10.1080/1369183x.2024.2434054

The role of private sponsorship on refugee resettlement outcomes: a mixed methods study of Syrians in a mid-sized city with a linguistic minority

2024· article· en· W4404925763 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Anyck Dauphin, Luisa Veronis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ethnic and Migration Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Refugees, and Integration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRefugeePolitical scienceSyrian refugeesLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given the growing number of refugees worldwide and the disproportionate burden borne by low- and middle-income host countries, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has been seeking to expand pathways for refugees by relocating them to higher-income countries; as such, it put forward Canada’s program of private refugee sponsorship as a model to follow. Despite praise for Canada’s program, many countries hesitate to adopt it due to limited evidence on the integration outcomes of private refugee sponsorship. We address this knowledge gap by examining the case of Syrians resettled in a mid-sized city in Quebec, the only French-speaking province in Canada, using a mixed methods approach. We document the sponsorship experiences of Syrian refuges, and we estimate the effect of private vs. government sponsorship on their resettlement outcomes while controlling for pre-arrival characteristics. We find that private sponsorship offered refugees more diverse, intensive, enduring, and valued support compared to government sponsorship. Consistently with these results, our estimates show that private sponsorship could be an effective strategy for resettling refugees in medium-sized cities with respect to employment, housing, social networking, and a sense of belonging to the city, with the potential exception of acquiring the domestic language.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.369
Threshold uncertainty score0.882

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.372 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Ethnic and Migration StudiesSame topicMigration, Refugees, and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207