Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In the time before contact with European settlers and in the early colonial period, care for orphans and destitute and abandoned children in Canada was performed by kin and neighbors. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, local charitable endowments managed by religious orders, secular charities, or women’s organizations created institutional spaces in the form of workhouses, orphanages, and industrial schools for dependent children. Formal adoptions were rare—rather, apprenticeships, farm placements, and domestic service positions were secured for the young inmates. The late nineteenth century saw middle-class reformers promote a more nurturing environment for children, which resulted in a number of social reforms directed at improving their health, welfare, and education. As part of these reforms, the state took responsibility for child protection. Across Canada, provinces created laws establishing child welfare agencies, which were granted authority to care for dependent children and remove any child from parents deemed negligent, making them temporary or permanent wards of the state. The agencies were managed by a new profession, social workers, who sought homes for their wards in orphanages or foster families. Nonkin adoptions, arranged by public agencies and private channels, grew more common in the early twentieth century. Motivations to adopt included infertility as well as altruism. Until the late twentieth century, the management of adoptions reflected patriarchal social norms and the interests of the majority white culture. Thus, the preferred adoptive parents were heterosexual white married couples matched with healthy white infants with a similar appearance, religion, intellect, ethnicity, and economic class. Due to social stigma and the lack of financial support for single mothers, the main pool of infants available for adoption from the 1920s to the 1970s were those born to unwed mothers, who were often coerced to surrender their children. As prejudice against illegitimacy lessened, social welfare programs grew and birth control and abortion were decriminalized, resulting in fewer newborns placed for adoption. Yet demand for adoption remained strong; therefore, new candidates for adoption were considered, including older children and children with disabilities or health challenges. By the postwar period, rigidity over matching had relaxed enough to encourage transracial adoptions. Concurrently, there was an interest from Canadians wishing to adopt internationally. The practices of transracial and transnational adoption were met with praise for their inclusivity, but also controversy due to their assimilationist nature, particularly with regard to Indigenous children raised in non-Indigenous families. In the 1980s and 1990s, the secrecy surrounding adoption dissipated when the provinces gave adoptees who had reached adulthood and birth parents access to their records, introduced open adoptions, and began to offer search and counseling to facilitate reunions. In the early twenty-first century, adoptions by same-sex couples were legalized in every province and territory. Despite reforms making adoption more open and inclusive, the number of permanent wards across Canada, a disproportionate number of whom are Indigenous or have high-needs youth, far exceeds available adoptive parents. The youth who spend long periods in the child welfare system or age out of state care are a highly vulnerable population, more likely to experience maltreatment, mental illness, academic struggles, and behavioral challenges than children not in care.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,023 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».