“Fitting a Square Peg into a Round Hole” — Understanding Kinship Care Outside of the Foster Care Paradigm
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This exploratory grounded theory study is a comparative analysis of kinship and foster care in the province of Ontario. This study sought the perspective of three constituent groups—caregivers (N=22), workers (N=14) and youth (N=9)—from both kinship and foster care constituent populations. The total number of participants was 45. This is one of the first comprehensive qualitative studies in the province of Ontario since the inception of the kinship model of practice implemented by the child welfare system in 2006. The study resonates with important practice, policy and research implications for Ontario and beyond. Recruitment for the study was generated through various child welfare organizations and a kin grandparents support network. Findings from each of the three groups include the following: (1) specialized kin workers recognize the complexities and unique needs of kinship placements; (2) foster parents and kin caregivers have very different needs related to training, financial remuneration and support; and (3) youth experience feelings of loneliness and frustration when moving to different placements, but also acknowledge the importance of relationships, particularly to their assigned worker. The analysis of these three group converges to a very simple but poignant conclusion: kinship programs are unique and require a level of intervention that is separate and discrete from the current foster care paradigm.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it