Inuit Youth Transitioning out of Residential Care: Obstacles to Re-integration and Challenges to Wellness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For youth under child welfare, transitioning out of residential care and reintegrating into their community can be a difficult process. This may be especially true for Inuit youth who, because they are away from their communities, cannot develop networks and relationships that would provide a secure place for their development as an adult and as a community member. The objectives of this study were to document how transition out of care is addressed in a residence specialized for Inuit youth under government care, and to explore, from the perspective of residential managers and staff, what factors facilitate or create obstacles to successful transition. Interviews were conducted to discuss the transition of 11 youth from residential placement back into communities. The criteria used by managers and staff to describe transitions mostly focused on the behaviours of the youth and the ability to create and implement a plan. Are current theme was the importance of continuity and connections with family, staff, and culture. Various measures were put into place around the current system of care in order to facilitate continuity and connections to respond to the cultural and personal needs of youth. To enhance the “cultural competence” of care, we suggest that: (i) criteria for successful and unsuccessful transitions be determined with youth, families, and communities; (ii) that Inuit representation in care be increased; and (iii) that measures be taken outside the current system of care to encourage shifts in power distribution.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".