MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989199304 · doi:10.1353/his.0.0018

Government Approaches to Child Neglect and Mistreatment in Nineteenth-century Ontario

2008· article· fr· W1989199304 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Charlotte Neff

Bibliographic record

VenueHistoire sociale · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeglectDisadvantagedLegislationChild protectionGovernment (linguistics)AccountabilityFoster careChild neglectFoundation (evidence)Public administrationChild careChild abuseInstitutionPolitical scienceState (computer science)State governmentLawMedicinePoison controlNursingLocal governmentSuicide preventionEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En 1893, l'Ontario a mis sur pied son premier système complet de protection de l'enfance. La notion de négligence et la présomption de responsabilité sociale et gouvernementale à l'endroit des enfants défavorisés n'étaient toutefois pas nouvelles, ayant évolué durant le premier siècle d'existence de l'Ontario. En 1874, la législation donnait une description claire et précise de ce qu'était un enfant ayant besoin de protection et un parent déficient et prévoyait : un processus permettant de soustraire les enfants à leurs parents et l'autorité de refuser de les leur rendre; un nouveau type d'établissements pour s'occuper de ces enfants; des subventions gouvernementales systématiques pour les foyers pour enfants et l'obligation de ces maisons de rendre des comptes à l'État; et un processus de constitution en personne morale plus simple permettant aux oeuvres de bienfaisance d'exercer sur les enfants à leur charge l'autorité dont elles avaient besoin. On ancrait ainsi le système de protection de l'enfance de l'Ontario à de solides assisses.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.715
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.150 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistoire socialeSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207