Community-based groups for reducing occupational deprivation among asylum seekers, refugees, and other forcibly displaced populations: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The global rise in forced displacement has led to an increase in occupational injustices among individuals seeking refuge, often due to restrictions imposed by government policies. Involvement in community groups has been identified as a means of inclusion, highlighting the broader role of communities in this context.Aim This scoping review aimed to identify the types of community-based groups and their potential to reduce experiences of occupational deprivation for asylum seekers, refugees, and other forcibly displaced populations.Method The scoping review followed a five-stage framework. Seven databases were searched, encompassing articles published from January 2000 to January 2023.Results A three-stage search strategy yielded 1,355 results. Following screening, 15 studies met the inclusion criteria. Findings indicated that community-based groups included community development projects (n = 5), community gardens (n = 4), sports-based community groups (n = 3), and community creative art groups (n = 3). Each demonstrated ability to enhance a sense of belonging and well-being for asylum seekers, refugees, and other forcibly displaced populations through engaging them in diverse occupations alongside local community members.Conclusion Occupational participation and engagement play a vital role in the resettlement process. Findings from occupationally focused studies provide evidence with which to challenge potentially oppressive systems by engaging with governments, non-governmental organisations, allied healthcare professions, and communities to support the inclusion of asylum seekers, refugees, and other forcibly displaced populations.
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 | 0.010 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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".