Instability and caregiving in the lives of street‐involved youth from foster care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A large proportion of youth who become street‐involved have experience in foster care, and our sample of 92 street‐involved youth, aged 14–18 years, all had foster care experience. We report on (i) instability of guardians and home from birth to street involvement; (ii) the connection between perceptions about foster care and measures of well‐being; and (iii) the implications of these findings for understanding street‐involved youth and the role of foster care in their life. The average number of transitions per youth from birth to mid‐teens was nine. Youth with experience in permanent care first lived away from biological parents at age 8.5 years, and for those with temporary care experience, it was age 10 years. Foster care was one of many living situations and one of several sources of caregivers. If participants were satisfied with foster care, they were more likely to be currently hopeful and happy. Participants who experienced positive influences from at least one long‐term caregiver tended to have other positive caregiver experiences, and those with negative influences were more likely to also have a positive relationship with a female caregiver. Foster care was one of several ‘way stations’ in their lives, one whose meaning needs further study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".