Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The complex links between migration, culture, health, and place are signaled through scholarship employing various theoretical lenses and methodologies. Immigrants come from different geographic, social, and religious backgrounds and therefore the theoretical constructs of place and situated local knowledge are crucial for the study of immigrant health. Geographical and social dislocations accompanying migration are experienced and responded to in the context of particular places and sets of social relations forged through interlocking scales – local, national, and global. Qualitative research gives central space to the stories of (im)migrants. There is evidence of vulnerability and inequality arising either from economically disadvantaged status or a discourse on “othering,” and an observed fluidity of identities and culture. Four key, interweaving, themes are related to immigrant health: first, the bodily inscription of immigrants and refugees in terms of citizenship and related access to health services in the receiving country; second, the situatedness of health ideas and practices in sets of local conditions and relationships; third, addressing “culture” in health‐care practice; and fourth, advocacy/engaged research that interrogates the construct “immigrant health” to foreground pluralistic and transnational models of care. Common in these themes is resistance to a polarizing of structure/political economy and agency in explanation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.221 | 0.030 |
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".