MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150780669

Child welfare approaches for Indigenous communities : international perspectives

2004· article· en· W2150780669 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Terri Libesman

Bibliographic record

VenueUTS ePRESS (University of Technology Sydney) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousLegislationContext (archaeology)EmpowermentPolitical scienceCommunity developmentWelfareEconomic growthPublic relationsSociologyGeographyLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Child welfare approaches for Indigenous communities: International perspectivesMany of the problems associated with child abuse and neglect in communities are directly related to experiences of colonisation.Indigenous peoples in different countries and communities may have experienced colonial processes differently, but have experienced some common impacts.This paper provides a review of legislation and services delivered to Indigenous communities in Canada, the United States and New Zealand.While some of the issues and ideas may be useful and relevant in the Australian context, a key finding in the research is that a "one size fits all approach" does not work.Particular attention is paid to new approaches to family and community wellbeing that focus work on community strengths and healing, and provide a less problem-focused picture of Indigenous communities.There has been much interest in overseas legislative reform that transfers real authority for children and families' wellbeing to Indigenous communities.This is widely considered to be important to the long-term empowerment of Indigenous peoples and a basis for the development of more effective support systems.The United States Indian Child Welfare Act currently represents the highest level of transfer of decision-making authority to Indigenous peoples.The paper describes a range of service models that focus on Indigenous collaboration, community development, community participation and community control.Although local solutions will need to be found for different Indigenous communities, there is a preference across Indigenous communities for holistic, multifaceted approaches that heal all sections of the community and address the underlying causes of health and social problems.Some key policy and practice recommendations for the development of better £ child protection and child welfare/family support systems are described.• It is contended that statutory child protection services be based on an understanding of communal identity and a "whole-of-community" rather than individually-focused response.Further, they require a more collaborative, community-based "grass-roots" approach.This shoulr: be naseu in part on the rlcvelcpment of comprehensive neiqhbourhood-base«,Upl]"1 ts and services, \Nllich draw 011 family networks and other infnnncll resources.• Good partnp,rsllips and i,nal1iilljflJl colla!JOri:Hion l)ch'H~enljQvernment and Indigenous organisations are vital to tile development of effectiVe: child protection and broader child welfare strategies.SUCl1 partnerships must be tounded upon inclusiveness and

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0130.013
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0020.012
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations42
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUTS ePRESS (University of Technology Sydney)Same topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207