ADAPTATION AND SURVIVAL STRATEGIES OF REFUGEE WOMEN WITH DISABILITIES IN SASKATOON, CANADA.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In their everyday lives, persons with disabilities are given the societal message that they are lesser human beings (Ingstad and White, 1995; Garland-Thompson, 2017). Although both men and women with disabilities experience different levels and variable forms of discrimination, disability disadvantages women more than men (Dossa, 2006; Dossa, 2009; El-Lahib & Wehbi, 2009). Women who have disabilities have fewer opportunities for education and work, and fewer chances of marriages compared to their male counterparts (Emmett & Alant, 2016; Prince, 2006; Siebers, 2013). These disadvantages are compounded for refugee women because a sense of belonging for refugee women with disabilities is determined by a complex interaction of personal characteristics, pre and post-migration experiences, and wider societal influences (Dossa, 2009). This research explored the experiences of refugee women with physical disabilities who have immigrated to Saskatoon. This thesis examines their stories to reflect on ways in which disability is understood and negotiated in the processes of immigration and re-settlement. The research also studied the needs and challenges refugee women with disability encounter settling and integrating into Saskatoon, and the coping strategies that they adopted. As the migration experience is gendered and affected by a number of factors, an intersectional analysis is employed to interrogate the various mediating factors in Canada. Feminist standpoint theory informs both the methodological approach and analysis of the experiences of integration of women with disabilities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".