How does foster care work? : international evidence on outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Part 1. Introduction. Foreword. James K. Whittaker, University of Washington, USA. Introduction: Reviewing International Evidence to Inform Foster Care Policy and Practice. Elizabeth Fernandez, University of New South Wales, Australia and Richard P. Barth, University of Maryland, USA. 1. International Perspectives on Foster Care. June Thoburn, University of East Anglia, UK. Part 2. Placement Movements and Destinations. 2. Five Year Developmental Outcomes for Young Children Remaining in Foster Care, Returned Home or Adopted. Richard P. Barth and Christopher Lloyd, University of Arkansas, USA. 3. The Placement Stability in Foster Care. Fred Wulczyn and Lijun Chen, University of Chicago, USA. 4. Foster Care in the Netherlands: Correlates of Placement Breakdown and Successful Placement. Johan Piet Strijker, University of Groningen, The Netherlands. 5. Profile and Scope of Foster Care in Spain. Jorge Fernandez del Valle and Monica Lopez, University of Oviedo, Spain. 6. Reunification in Australia: Insights from South Australia and New South Wales. Elizabeth Fernandez and Paul Delfabbro, University of Adelaide, Australia Part 3. The Foster Care Experience: A Life Course Perspective. 7. Very Young Children in Care in England: Issues for Foster Care. Harriet Ward and Emily R. Munro, Loughborough University, UK 8. Fostering Adolescents in England: What Contributes to Success? Elaine Farmer, University of Bristol, UK. 9. Rates of Mental, Emotional, and Behavioural Disorders Among Alumni of Family Foster Care in the United States: The Casey National Alumni Study. Peter J. Pecora, Catherine Roller White, Lee Ann Murdock, Kirk O'Brien, Casey Family Programs, USA, Ronald C. Kessler, Nancy Sampson and Irving Hwang Harvard Medical School, USA. Part 4. Psychological Outcomes and Correlates of Outcomes. 10. What Makes for Effective Foster Care: Some Issues. Ian Sinclair, University of York, UK. 11. Long-term Outcomes of Foster Care: Lessons from Swedish National Cohort Studies. Bo Vinnerljung, University of Stockholm, Sweden, Eva Franzen, Swedish Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, Sweden, Anders Hjern, National Board of Health and Welfare, Sweden and Frank Lindblad, Uppsala University, Sweden. 12. Foster Care in Denmark: Comparing Kinship and Non-Kinship Forms of Care. Lajla Knudsen, Tim Egelund and Anne-Dorthe Hestbaeck, SFI, The Danish National Centre for Social Research, Denmark. 13. Selected Educational Outcomes for Young People Aged 17-19 Years in Long Term Foster Care in Ireland. Fiona Daly, Irish Association of Young People in Care, Ireland and Robbie Gilligan, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland. 14. Can Tutoring by Foster Parents Improve Foster Children's Basic Academic Skills? A Canadian Randomized Field Trial. Robert J. Flynn, Marie-Pierre Paquet and Robyn Marquis, University of Ottawa, Canada. 15. Wellbeing in Foster Care: An Australian Longitudinal Study of Outcomes. Elizabeth Fernandez. Commentary by Robert Flynn. Conclusion. Richard P. Barth and Elizabeth Fernandez. List of Contributors. Index.
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 | 0.027 | 0.110 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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".