Globally cross-examining case studies of refugee resettlement: How do these help us understand “successful” refugee integration? A look at refugees and how they are resettled in the USA, Canada, and Italy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The world’s refugee crisis is ongoing and increasing in severity. By employing a thematic analysis this thesis seeks to center refugee perspectives to define success in resettlement. Through comparative analysis, commonalities and differences are found within the resettlement practices and policies of the USA, Italy, and Canada. The Integrated Threat and Cultural Adaptation theories are utilized to help understand the actions of both the receiving society and the refugees themselves. Canada remains a top destination for refugees; however, the worsening housing crisis is proving to put significant hardship on refugees. The US refugee resettlement program is contradictory in that it prioritizes accepting the most vulnerable refugees while expecting them to be work-ready upon arrival. Further, the US provides an insufficient amount of assistance (in regard to duration) during resettlement. The Italian Humanitarian Corridors Program is a groundbreaking initiative that proves successful but presents conflicts when trying to expand. Drawing on qualitative and quantitative data from resettlement case studies in each country, the analysis reveals that consistent gaps remain in addressing systemic barriers and personal needs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".