Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractSomali women navigate multiple levels of oppression when they choose to relocate to Canada through refugee status, but Somali women’s individual perspectives are largely absent from the literature on the diasporic experience. Research examining the lived experiences of these individuals is helpful not only for better understanding their specific challenges and difficulties, but also for understanding how their status as refugees in the diaspora has influenced their conceptions of their identity. This dissertation examines the theoretical basis for academic assessments of lived experience, but also allows for the development of critical frameworks that will allow policy makers to use academic research to align outcomes with intentions. The main research question is as follows: can different theoretical frameworks including anti-racist theory, Black feminist theory, anti-colonial theory, and Indigenous ways of knowing explain why Somali women’s experiences have been rendered largely invisible in the published literature? This question is explored through a metasynthesis of the literature using grounded theory. The dissertation also provides an assessment of Canadian federal policy. The findings demonstrate that current discursive traditions in theory do not easily capture the lived experiences of Somali refugee women in the diaspora, especially in Canada. Anti-colonial and anti-racist theories fail to capture these experiences to their fullest. While Black feminist thought can help to illuminate the pathways forward for Somali women, such as the use of self-definition, self-valuation, and the creation of social and cultural change through praxis, Indigenous ways of knowing may be best positioned to critically examine Somali refugee women's lived experiences.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".