Refugees' access to healthcare in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada is a nation with a policy of multiculturalism and a deep history of welcoming refugees\nfrom around the world. As Olsen et al. (2016) state, “the integration of refugees into Canadian\nsociety is promoted as a source of pride and nation-building, adding to the richness and diversity\nof the Canadian population” (p. 58). However, the influx of refugees in Canada with diverse and\ncomplex health needs has presented a number of challenges within the healthcare system (Joshi\net al., 2013, p. 2). Unfortunately, refugees experience various barriers when accessing healthcare\nservices such as racism, discrimination and othering. These barriers are systemic and are\ninfluenced by a Eurocentric worldview, which does not always take into consideration other\nways of knowing. As a result, this paper suggests that implementation of culturally safe practice\ncould bridge the gap between health providers and refugees. Also, this paper demonstrates that\nunsafe cultural behaviours and actions continue to deny healthcare access to refugees. Rousseau\net al. (2008) writes, “from a human rights perspective, regulations and administrative policies\nhighlighted by this study target specific vulnerable groups within Canada and are completely at\nodds with the Equality Rights set out by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms” (p. 291).\nFinally, this paper calls for an attitude change toward refugees, and corollary changes in policies,\nwhich will positively impact the health trajectories of refugees and reduce health inequality in\nthe Canadian health system.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.100 | 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".