Safeguarding disabled children in residential settings: what we know and what we don't know
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Research in America, Canada, Australia and Britain has revealed that disabled children are particularly vulnerable to abuse. Their likelihood of attending residential institutions, their dependency on others for personal care and the lack of opportunities for them to alert others to maltreatment or comprehend the nature of abusive acts all increase levels of risk. Over the last decade, there has been increasing public and professional concern about the abuse of children in residential establishments, resulting in a number of inquiries. However, the abuse of disabled children in residential settings has received little attention. Despite residential schools, care homes and respite care being widely used by disabled children, there is a paucity of knowledge regarding the standards of child protection in these establishments. This article explores the research literature revealing the vulnerability of disabled children to abuse when living away from home, what measures can be taken to help protect them and the limitations of available data as a basis for planning child protection measures. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 it