MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1608705938 · doi:10.58464/2168-670x.1041

Considering the Consequences of Child Welfare Service Decisions

2011· article· en· W1608705938 on OpenAlexaff
Vincent J. Geremia

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Strengths · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSAS software applications and methods
Canadian institutionsCommunity Based Research Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeglectWelfarePsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)Child abuseWelfare systemService (business)PsychologyFoster careMedicinePublic economicsNursingPsychiatryPoison controlBusinessEconomicsSuicide preventionPolitical scienceMedical emergencyLawMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The following commentary serves as a response to the article, “That Wall is Around My Heart,” underscoring the importance of decision making in child welfare services. The commentary supports the need for child welfare systems to carefully consider the long-term consequences of various service intervention strategies. Child welfare systems must attend to both the internal external elements of safety, giving special attention to the emotional trauma of child maltreatment and the trauma resulting from removal and placement in alternative care. The commentary supports the need for child welfare systems to provide effective interventions that prevent and respond to child abuse and neglect, as well as break the cyclical nature of child maltreatment, helping ensure the safety of children and families for future generations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.192
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.192
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0150.022
Scholarly communication0.0140.009
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0220.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family StrengthsSame topicSAS software applications and methodsFrench-language works237,207