MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7024404471

The Situation of Children in Immigrant Families in the United Kingdom

2009· book· en· W7024404471 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePure (Coventry University) · 2009
Typebook
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationKingdomCensusRefugeePopulationCountry of originQuarter (Canadian coin)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The foreign-born population in the United Kingdom reached 4.9 million in 2001, representing 8.3% of the total population. Around 2.1 million children (16.3% of all children) were in immigrant families. A fifth of these children were foreign born. The remainder were born in the United Kingdom of at least one foreign-born parent. More than 40% were in families from Asia, around 20 per cent in families from Africa and around 20% in families from other countries in Europe. Bangladesh, Jamaica, India and Pakistan are some of the main countries of origin. The aim of this report is to examine the situation of children in immigrant families in the United Kingdom based on research evidence and new analysis of the most recently available census data in 2001. The report includes research and data relating to all children in immigrant families, including foreign-born children who have immigrated to the United Kingdom and children who each have been born in the United Kingdom to at least one foreign born parent at the time of census 2001. The families fall into a variety of immigration categories, including refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants who have come to the United Kingdom to work or study or to join family members and who have permission to remain on a temporary or permanent basis.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePure (Coventry University)Same topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207