Positive experiences of First Nations children in non-Aboriginal foster or adoptive care : de-constructing the "Sixties Scoop"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The character of Indian child welfare discourse in Canada is highly polemic and politically charged. The relationship between First Nations and the child welfare system has been described through an explanatory framework known as the'Sixties Scoop'. As an extension of the colonial mode the Sixties Scoop refers to the period during the 1960s and 1970s when child protective services were first extended to First Nations people on reserve and there were high numbers of First Nations children entering substitute care.The predominance of this model has resulted in an overwhelming focus on negative consequences and experiences with the child welfare system. Those First Nations people who had positive experiences in substitute care have not been addressed. Through an examination of these perspectives, this thesis seeks to expand the parameters within which Indian child welfare issues are discussed. Due to the extreme contrast between the central tenets of the Sixties Scoop model and the perspectives of those who shared their positive experiences in substitute care, it was also necessary to provide some form of reconciliation to the existing discourse. This reconciliation process was undertaken through an examination of the context within which the Sixties Scoop model developed and attained such widespread acceptance. Through a sociological perspective known as 'Claims-Making' the development, legitimization and impact of the Sixties Scoop model was examined. Upon demonstrating the influence of the larger political relationship upon the existing discourse, it was then possible to de-construct the Sixties Scoop model which helped to reduce some of its conceptual hegemony and make room in the discourse for the perspectives of those individuals who participated in this study. By integrating these perspectives into the discourse in this manner, this thesis validates the voices of those First Nations people whose perspectives have been obscured by the dominant model while also demonstrating their significance to the discourse. Within this process, some of the inadequacies and weaknesses of the Sixties Scoop (as an explanatory framework for the relationship between First Nations and the child welfare system) are also identified.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".