Does differential response make a difference: examining domestic violence cases in child protection services
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Large numbers of domestic violence ( DV ) cases on child protection caseloads have necessitated the development of practices that address both DV and child safety. The first step in this process is to gain an understanding of the differences between DV ‐involved cases and other forms of maltreatment. The implementation of a differential response service model in O ntario offered an opportunity to compare risk assessment ratings, service outcomes and recurrence and to identify pathways of DV cases through child protection services ( CPS ). A sample ( n = 785) of child protection investigations over a 4‐month period was examined. Of these investigations, 26% cases were DV referred; 87% of the DV victims were mothers; perpetrating partners were mostly absent from investigations; non‐white families were more often investigated for DV than white families; and DV cases were more likely to remain open for ongoing CPS . Only one‐third of DV ‐exposed children were assessed as having been harmed and most community referrals were made for the victim parent. Mothers were the primary target of investigation, remaining in CPS for extended service provision although recurrence rates were lower than found in other investigations. Results are discussed to inform investigative procedures, assessment and service response to more adequately respond to children and families when DV is present.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it