Hope Conceptualized: An Analysis of Settlement Workers' Understandings of Hope
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study examines the similarities and differences in settlement workers’ conceptualizations of hope. This study begins with a literature review of existing hope theories, as well as an examination of how hope is significant in refugees’ lives. It uses an interpretivist, social constructionist framework to do a comparative analysis of three in-depth interviews with settlement workers in southern Ontario. Emphasizing relationships, experiences, and multiple understandings, this study demonstrates the socially constructed nature of hope, which is found to be personally nuanced to each participant. The findings suggest that hope is understood differently by different people, with many underlying themes and similarities. These findings encourage settlement workers and social workers to reflect on their own conceptualizations of hope, as well as consider how their clients might understand it differently. Doing this will lead to increased client-centered practice and reduce misunderstandings about hope in practice.
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 | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".