Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This report is a small, in‐depth, descriptive study of allegations of maltreatment made against 22 foster carers, based on semi‐structured interviews with the foster carers, 18 family placement officers and all principal family placement officers in six local authorities in the North of England. Less than 10% (in fact, 2/22) of the allegations were eventually substantiated (i.e. found to be true on investigation) and roughly a quarter (six) were found to be untrue. The remainder were either pronounced ‘unsubstantiated’ (i.e. ‘unproven’—eight cases) or were not proceeded with (two) or never reached a conclusion (four). Less than a quarter of the children at the centre of the allegations remained in placement by the end of the investigation. Two‐thirds of the foster carers continued to foster. Seven (32%) of the carers had previously had allegations made against them. In three cases there was a second allegation of sexual abuse. In one of these the current outcome was ‘founded’, and in a second this probably would have been the outcome had the case not been dropped after the foster father's suicide. In certain respects foster carers seem to be judged more severely than birth parents, and they were almost routinely denied aspects of natural justice accorded birth parents, such as being clearly informed in writing of the allegation made against them and, subsequently, of the outcome of the investigation. Nor were they permitted to put their side of the story at case conferences and other serious incident meetings. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| 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".