MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969650531 · doi:10.1177/1473325011424086

Caseworker attitudes on kinship care in Ontario

2011· article· en· W1969650531 on OpenAlex
Kimberly Brisebois

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Social Work · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Welfare and Adoption
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKinshipKinship careMandateLegislationService (business)Public relationsSociologyPolitical scienceBusinessLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This exploratory study aims to develop an understanding of caseworker views on the challenges and opportunities of kinship care. This sample includes protection and kinship service caseworkers who service families in Ontario. Focus groups with a self-selected sample of 27 caseworkers explored the current attitudes of ongoing caseworkers toward kinship caregivers and the policies that mandate their exploration. Results indicated that workers are embracing the idea of kinship care; however they note several limitations and frustrations with the practice. Lack of resources and services for kinship caregivers, issues of conflict and difficulty in monitoring kinship homes hinder positive attitudes about this practice. Further, workers felt that the current legislation encourages the approval of kinship homes that are viewed as substandard and unsafe for children.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.618
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.173
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.237 · 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