Our stories : the experiences of women impacted by migration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A collaboratively developed infographic is a Knowledge Mobilization Project that ties back to the women we engaged with and their communities. The infographic summarizes recommendations provided by women from our intersectionality-framed narrative inquiry study that aimed to gather stories on how forced migration status, gender, and racism intersected to shape access to settlement and health services. The infographic has been translated into four languages jointly decided upon with our community advisory team member belonging to the following settlement and health organizations: DIVERSEcity Community Resources Society, Impact North Shore, Options BC, MOSAIC, Burnaby New Canadian Clinic (Fraser Health Authority), Chimo Community Services, and Umbrella Multicultural Health Co-op. The study and project were funded by: SSHRC, Michael Smith Health Research British Columbia, and the University of British Columbia School of Nursing Lyle Creelman Endowment Fund. Non-UBC Affiliations: DIVERSEcity Community Resources Society, Impact North Shore, Options BC, MOSAIC, Burnaby New Canadian Clinic (Fraser Health Authority), Chimo Community Services, Surrey Local Immigration Partnership, and Umbrella Multicultural Health Co-op.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".