They survived war and conflict; can they now survive school? a study of newcomer and refugee youth participants in an after-school program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this qualitative research was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Peaceful Village Program (PVP) in terms of selected intended outcomes for new immigrant and refugee students enrolled in middle-years and high schools in Winnipeg, Manitoba. For many new immigrant and refugee youth, being able to attend school and achieve is the ultimate aspiration. Given the important role that the PVP has in fostering the learning and development of refugee students in Winnipeg, and that little attention in previous studies have focused on the level of students’ participation in after-school programs, this evaluative study examined the outcomes of the youth, particularly newcomer youth attending the Peaceful Village Program after school programs. More specially, this study evaluated the processes (i.e., how well was the program delivered as intended) and outcomes (i.e., how much did students benefit from participating in the PVP) of the PVP. The improved self-worth and sense of belonging were the most obvious and significant findings in this study. Immigrant and refugee students develop self-confidence, a risk-taking spirit, and a sense of optimism about future opportunities as their self-esteem and sense of belonging improve, which leads to higher academic achievement. Based on the findings of this study, it is reasonable to conclude that immigrant and refugee students can do well in school if their schools support, welcome, and love them. Refugee students must feel safe and valued in their new surroundings, and they must be supported in their new communities while having their unique perspectives and abilities recognized. When programs like the PVP and others, including schools, go beyond the academic system to support immigrant and refugee students' integration and settlement, it is critical that their holistic needs are met
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".