Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kinship Care is a relatively new, organized concept and increasingly popular alternative to foster care in the Ontario child welfare system. The field is currently developing policies and practices in terms of how kinship care can be standardized and implemented to provide more permanency to children identified to be in need of protection. However, with the child welfare system operating within a larger system, there is a danger that the emergence of kinship care may re-produce the inequalities of women and their caring work. Similar to the foster care system, kin caregivers are mainly women yet the critical difference is these women are closely tied as kin to their external families who have reached out to them along with the child welfare agency with the expectation they provide care for kin children who cannot remain in the birth parent's home. This study has attempted to accurately examine and depict the experiences of 4 female kin caregivers in order to listen to their voices and gain a better understanding of their struggles in maintaining the autonomy and integrity of their extended families. The participants offer poignant examples in their stories of their strong maternal duty and commitment to care and how quickly the organizational structure can take advantage of their socially constructed place in the larger society. The interviews highlighted the fact that by way of societal expectations, the child welfare system in Ontario has inadvertently placed them in the centre of a panopticon, itself becoming the surveyor of these female kin caregivers. Due to the kin caregiver's gender and the social construction of maternal blame, the system intrudes to monitor how they parent their own kin. This in tum creates a perception or appearance that kin caregivers are less able to care and does not reflect a high social value. The findings highlight several implications for social work policy and practice and raises questions about the need to change some of the current practices of how we view kin caregivers. Furthermore, if there is to be a gaze upon kin caregivers due to bureaucratic obligations, the gaze must be a reciprocal one---one that identifies and sees injustices to kin caregivers with intent for resolution without judgment.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".