Rights Conceptions of Maltreated Children Living in State Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although research on children's thinking about children's rights has increased over the past few decades, there has been virtually no study of children with maltreatment histories who live in state care. This group is particularly vulnerable, having suffered profound violations of their right to security at the hands of their caregivers and often residing in non-kinship settings. We examined conceptions and attitudes about nurturance and self-determination rights in 100 10-18-year-old maltreated children living in state care in Toronto, Canada. Participants demonstrated a more accurate definition of a right than typically-developing youth in previous studies. Rights that were salient related predominantly to participants' current – rather than historical – circumstances. However, compared to nonmaltreated children in previous research, there was a greater focus on rights related to protection and access to basic needs, which suggests that basic issues of protection and provision are still quite relevant in their lives. While type of maltreatment did not relate to participants' thinking about rights, differences emerged between youth living in foster care and group homes. In general, rights that appeared salient to participants had an aspirational quality in that they related to opportunities or benefits that they deemed important but may not have experienced. Theoretical and practical implications of the results are discussed.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".