MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6996435077

Settlement Experiences in a Small City: Kamloops, British Columbia

2008· article· en· W6996435077 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueArca (British Columbia Electronic Library Network) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersThompson Rivers University
KeywordsSettlement (finance)ImmigrationMetropolitan areaMulticulturalismHuman settlementSocial policyEthnic groupWork (physics)Citizenship
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What is the settlement experience of immigrants coming through family reunion intake class in Kamloops, British Columbia? The importance of undertaking this study lies in the settlement challenges faced by smaller communities outside of the major metropolitan areas of Canada. It is imperative to better understand the settlement experience of family-class immigrants in a smaller city.\nBritish Columbia is a large province and settlement experiences can be very different from one community to another. From 2002 to 2006 there were 4,111 new immigrants to the Thompson Okanagan Development Region (BC Multiculturalism and Immigration Branch, May 2007). All immigrant groups rely on health, education and other social services, and social workers play a key role\nin the delivery of direct and essential services. This study will generate discussion and policy recommendations for government, practitioners, policy-makers and other stakeholders around issues such as needs and settlement experiences of immigrants, ethno-specific groups, credentials recognition and other labour market issues, and capacity issues for delivering key services in a smaller community.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0220.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArca (British Columbia Electronic Library Network)Same topicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation StudiesFrench-language works237,207