Caregiver-teen Conflict & the CAS: A Beneficial Relationship?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis provided caregivers of teenagers exhibiting problematic behaviors, an opportunity to voice their feelings, and experiences in regards to working with the Children's Aid Society of London and Middlesex (CAS). Parents were asked if they viewed their relationship with the CAS as beneficial and what suggestions they had, if any, in regards to improving services in the future. In this study, parents indicated that changes in legislation were necessary to ensure best service to families experiencing conflict as described above. The findings in this study are not conclusive as only a small sample size was used, however, the study allowed an in-depth exploration of the way caregivers experience CAS service when having a teenage child. The participants and host agency are from London, Ontario, but the information discussed may be transferable to other agencies and cities. Literature in regards to caregiver-teen conflict, how the conflict is caused, the services that help families through these problems and the caregivers' experience of these services were reviewed as a basis for the research. The findings suggested that caregivers were very frustrated with the CAS and did not view their interaction with this agency as beneficial. However, the CAS was not blamed for their lack of ability to help, instead, caregivers placed blame on the legislation that provides guidelines to support families. Caregivers in this study offered recommendations to improve supportive services in the community, some of which were changes to the age of consent to receive counseling, teenagers not being able to choose to leave school before the age of eighteen, and the government needing to help caregivers care for their children as opposed to undermining their authority.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".