Voices from Aboriginal child and family agencies in British Columbia: supporting Aboriginal adopted children with cultural planning.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the stories of Executive Directors of Delegated Aboriginal Child Welfare Agencies in regards to cultural planning for Aboriginal children being adopted into non-Aboriginal homes in British Columbia. This qualitative study used an Indigenous methodology to describe and interpret the elements of cultural planning for adopted Aboriginal children by interviewing Executive Directors of Aboriginal child welfare agencies in the province of British Columbia. The purpose is to provide knowledge about cultural planning and safety agreements in conjunction with Aboriginal agencies and to also gain an understanding of how Aboriginal agencies are able to meet their commitment to retain their adopted children’s’ Aboriginal identity and maintain their connections to culture, community and or family. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with six Executive Directors who volunteered for this study. Their stories were audio taped and analysed utilizing a thematic analysis. Two main themes emerged from the analysis were 1). Funding and 2), Legalizing Cultural Agreements. Ceremony was stressed throughout the interviews and is an integral part of Indigenous people and adequate funding needs to be re-addressed to support Aboriginal children in their best interests. Training continues to be a factor for adoptive parents to learn about the history of Aboriginal people and learning ways to best support the children they are adopting by learning about the rich cultures they belong to and how they will be able to make those connections. Funding of operational dollars for Aboriginal agencies appears to be at the fore front in every aspect of the cultural planning process.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".