The Effects of Self Harming Behaviours of Youth in Child Welfare Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper considers the clinical issue of self-harming behaviours, defined as intentional self-injury that results in tissue damage. It is distinct from a suicide attempt, as self-harm does not occur within the context of a conscious wish to die. Self-harming behaviours among children and youth is a recent area of research. To date, studies indicate that in community samples, self-harming behaviours occur in as many as 35% of youth who are sampled (Gratz, 2001). Alarmingly, very little is known about self-harming behaviours among children and youth within the child protection system. This study, drawing from data gathered through a government-mandated reporting procedure of all children and youth in care,attempted to explore self-harming behaviours of children and youth in welfare care. While analyses did not focus explicitly on Aboriginal children and youth, it does consider differences in self-harming behaviours among minority and non-minority children and youth in care of the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto. Approximately half of all child welfare cases that go through the child protection system in Toronto fall under the responsibility of the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto. Although minority status was not significantly related to the number of self-harming attempts or threats, results suggested that minority children and youth in care were less likely to use puncture-type behaviour (cutting, scratching, stabbing) as a means of serious self harm. Results suggest that although self- harm may be a universal phenomenon, culture may affect how children and youth in care engage in self-harming behaviours. Direction of future research should consider between-cultural effects and more importantly, how these culture-specific differences may impact on children and youth’s self-harming behaviours.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".