MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7115949927 · doi:10.1071/pu19170

Refugee health – collaborating for better outcomes

2018· article· en· W7115949927 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Health Research & Practice · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefugeeComprehensive Plan of ActionContext (archaeology)Mental healthHealth carePublic healthDistressCoping (psychology)Asylum seeker

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Refugee health is a topical and important issue.Although psychological issues are well described, and refugees from certain regions are at risk of a range of infectious diseases, many people from refugee backgrounds also experience chronic physical diseases and/or live with a disability. 1 Their health status has evolved in the context of organised violence marked by persecution, forced exile from their homelands, and grief and loss at many levels.Resettlement in a new country has its own challenges, often prolonged. 2here are some differences between the needs of asylum seekers and those of refugees who enter Australia as part of its humanitarian migration program.However, asylum seekers and refugees share many common concerns, especially long-term conditions such as psychological distress associated with their experiences and the uncertainty of life in Australia. 3Ngo and colleagues explore the detection rates for health conditions screened after arrival in Australia, and the importance of tailoring screening to refugees' migration history and risk.This is especially important for refugees from Middle Eastern countries such as Syria, whose risk profile is different to those from traditional refugee source countries.Despite the politics in Australia, there is genuine goodwill and concern to ensure that people from refugee backgrounds get the care and support they need.However, realising this objective is challenging.One major reason is the fragmentation that can occur between specialised refugee services and mainstream, public and nongovernment health and welfare services.Over time, this can create discontinuities that may lead to refugees' health and social needs being overlooked and neglected.Because of their lower health literacy, refugees are especially vulnerable to these gaps.Key requirements for better integrated care include good professional relationships between providers, effective communication and sharing of information, and clear and supported pathways between services.This issue of Public Health Research & Practice contains examples of where this integration works at the international level.Martin and Douglas describe the international cooperation involved in premigration screening, especially between the US, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.Pottie and colleagues illustrate the high level of collaboration between government, nongovernment, private and professional organisations in Canada in providing primary care for refugees.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.616
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.388
GPT teacher head0.597
Teacher spread0.209 · 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