MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157583509 · doi:10.1093/pch/10.9.545

Connectedness and health for First Nation adoptees

2005· article· en· W2157583509 on OpenAlexaff
Jeannine Carrière

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Welfare and Adoption
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial connectednessIndigenousQualitative researchInterviewLegislatureKinshipFocus groupGrounded theoryInterpersonal communicationPsychologyDevelopmental psychologySociologySocial psychologyPolitical scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present article describes the major findings from a doctoral study that explored the relationship among connectedness, health and adoption for First Nations children. Reports that focus on Aboriginal children in the care of public agencies emphasize the importance of the child remaining connected to family and community. The literature on adoption describes connectedness as an attribute of self that reflects our interpersonal relationship with the world. The objectives of the present study were to describe how connectedness relates to health for First Nations adoptees, and to explore legislative, policy and program implications in the adoption of First Nations children. The study was conducted using the western qualitative approach of in-depth interviewing with participants, accompanied by the indigenous method of talking circles with key informants. Grounded theory was the method of analysis. The findings of the study suggest that connection to birth family and community and ancestral knowledge are critical for First Nations adoptees.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 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

Citations63
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicChild Welfare and AdoptionFrench-language works237,207