Non-Aboriginal Child Protective Service Workers’ Utilization of the Maltreatment and Adolescent Pathway Knowledge Translation (MAP-KT) Portal: A Report on the Utilization Statistics and Utilization Gaps of Aboriginal Best-Practice Material
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the unique history and culture of the Aboriginal heritage, research evidence and evidence-based practice guidelines/recommendation derive from the general population are not sufficient in informing the practices of Child Protective Services’ caseworkers who are caring for Aboriginal youth in the child welfare system. Special attention should also be given to best-practice materials developed with special consideration of the Aboriginal context. The current study describes caseworkers’ utilization of Aboriginal child welfare best-practice materials hosted at the MAP-KT portal during its pilot testing period between October 1st 2007 and September 31st 2008. The objective of the current study is to assess the knowledge consumption behavior of caseworkers who were not employed by Aboriginal child protective agency but nonetheless had Aboriginal Child Welfare youth under they care. The MAP-KT portal is a web-based knowledge tool that brings to the point of practice (of CPS caseworker) child welfare knowledge distilled through the ‘knowledge filter” of the Knowledge to Action framework. Given the proportion of Aboriginal youth under the care of participating agencies, the utilization statistics of Aboriginal content hosted on the MAP-KT portal indicated that they might be under-utilized compared to other content areas. According to the Knowledge to Action framework, a number of ways to improve utilization have been proposed. Future research may focus on adapting the MAP-KT portal to user knowledge preferences on format, content and linkage to frequently utilized sites, as well as tailored marketing to users in First Nations child welfare services and those who provide services to children with First Peoples’ heritage.
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 | 0.015 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".