MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147333843 · doi:10.18357/ijcyfs.63201513566

RUNNING AWAY FROM CHILDREN’S RESIDENTIAL CARE: THE FINNISH CASE

2015· article· en· W2147333843 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Susanna Hoikkala, Martti Kemppainen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Child Youth and Family Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWelfareContext (archaeology)SafeguardScale (ratio)Welfare systemResidential careHealth carePoint (geometry)PhenomenonPsychologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceEconomic growthMedicineBusinessNursingSociologyLawEconomicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article discusses the phenomenon of running away from children’s residential care in the Finnish context. In the Finnish welfare system, residential care is understood as a last-resort form of alternative care. Its aim is to secure children’s well-being, development, and safety. Our article is based on the findings of a small-scale study launched and administrated by the Central Union for Child Welfare. These findings illustrate the multidimensional nature of the topic. First, the reasons for and the consequences of running away are diverse. Second, we need implementation of more inclusive and consistent practices as well as more explicit cooperation between authorities. Finally, the importance of children’s peer relations should be taken more seriously within residential care services. In this article, these findings are discussed bearing in mind the following critical question: What is the point of child welfare if it fails to serve children and safeguard their well-being and health during the out-of-home placement?

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.456

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Child Youth and Family StudiesSame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207