Evaluating the Impact of Community Sponsorship on Refugee Resettlement in Ireland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research aimed to find whether the Community Sponsorship Ireland has positively impacted on Refugee Resettlement in Ireland. To explore this, the research drew into a range of primary and secondary sources. It also incorporated the refugee stories in Ireland and interviews with three Community Sponsorship beneficiaries, national support organizations, and members of a sponsorship group. This research is structured into four parts. The first part provides an overview of Community Sponsorship in Ireland, including its definition, historical background, and the policy framework. The second part explores the impact of community sponsorship, with a particular focus on its social and economic effects on refugees. The third part analyzes the challenges and limitations of the CSI. Finally, the fourth part offers recommendations for strengthening this initiative in Ireland. The finding suggests that CSI has played a significant role in resettling refugees. It fostered strong partnerships among the government, civil society organizations, and grassroots support groups, creating a collaborative framework to assist and integrate refugees into Irish society. Despite these strengths, the program faced notable challenges. These include the difficulty of finding suitable accommodation, limited awareness and cooperation from relevant government bodies, and the slow pace of refugee family reintegration into the local community. To ensure the continued success of the program, this research highlights the need for greater government cooperation, particularly from local authorities, in supporting accommodation efforts. It also emphasizes the importance of raising awareness about CSI among relevant government departments and recommends the implementation of regular monitoring and evaluation to identify ongoing challenges and strengthen the long-term impact of the program.
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 | 0.016 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".