The nature and extent of migrants, immigrants, and refugees' trust in the social institutions of their host countries: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction One of the most significant drivers of the public's decision-making is trust. Trust is a critical factor when making decisions in the face of uncertainty and risk. This same principle applies to trust in our social institutions, which is the topic this paper explores. Institutional trust may be especially important for migrant groups whose vulnerabilities are furthered by the decrease in institutional trust. As such, this review aims to investigate the nature and extent of immigrants, migrants, and refugees' institutional trust (and adjacent concepts) in social institutions. Methods A scoping review was done using the PRISMA-ScR's guideline and Arksey and O'Malley's framework. A total of 81 articles were selected from four databases following screening, and then data were charted using three extraction tables. Data were organized following 5 main objectives relating to: trust theories and explanations (objective 1), recommendations and solutions targeting different social institutions (objective 2), across population group comparisons (objective 3), defining trust concepts (objective 4), and areas for future research (objective 5). Results Findings revealed that many different theories and definitions of institutional trust exist across studies suggesting that institutional trust is a complex and nuanced concept that may vary across different migrant groups, contextual factors, and social institutions of focus. As well, we note the heterogeneity of immigrant groups and how this may relate to the various factors identified as shaping institutional trust. Not a lot of recommendations were presented, and these were mostly community-based. Lastly, research gaps were identified to inform future research and inform efforts and strategies to build institutional trust among migrant groups. Discussion These findings, accompanied by other results, demonstrated the significance of trust in migrants when it comes to their successful integration, as well as their health and well-being over time. We emphasize the need for trust interventions at different societal levels, and the need to target both immigrant populations and social institutions. We conclude that establishing trust in one institution will help build trust in other institutions, such as the public health and healthcare system institutions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".