MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036024524 · doi:10.1002/yd.200

The transition from state care to adulthood: International examples of best practices

2007· article· en· W2036024524 on OpenAlexaff
Carrie Reid

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Directions for Youth Development · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Welfare and Adoption
Canadian institutionsChild Welfare League of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreparednessPopulationPsychologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceMedicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Around the world, the transition from adulthood is a difficult time for many youth. It is even more difficult for those who are transitioning to adulthood without the benefit of a support network full of family and friends. Youth leaving state care face a transition to independence and adulthood without many of the skills and supports most others take for granted. Preparedness is key to a successful transition, and youth leaving state care tend to be lacking it. In order for youth to truly be prepared for the transition process, they must have support in key areas of their lives: relationships, education, housing, life skills, identity, youth engagement, emotional healing, and adequate financial support. Without these supports, the dismal outcomes for youth transitioning to adulthood will remain unchanged. The United States, England, and Australia have successful programs targeting youth as they transition out of state care. These initiatives bring together and address the variety of needs of this unique population and aim to improve outcomes. While many of these programs and policies are in their infancy, they show promising results, and each contributes valuable experience to successfully working with youth through this tough transition.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations23
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Directions for Youth DevelopmentSame topicChild Welfare and AdoptionFrench-language works237,207