Bibliographic record
Abstract
The National Judicial Institute recently asked if I would be interested in developing a workshop on Aboriginal child welfare issues for Alberta judges. I was initially reluctant as my research on multicultural issues in family law focuses on child custody rather than child welfare and on religion and culture rather than Aboriginal heritage. These differences are not insignificant. I agreed to co-design a workshop when paired with Carol Carifelle Brzezicki of the Metis Nation of Alberta, who has extensive experience as a social worker and policy analyst with Aboriginal communities. I learned a great deal as we designed the workshop and as I prepared a short paper on child placement decisions.I was immediately struck by how Marlee Kline's work on Aboriginal women, the ideology of motherhood, and child welfare in Canada remains the leading scholarly contribution in this area. While there have been provincial government studies and inquiries into the administration of child welfare and Aboriginal peoples, Marlee's work is the most deeply theorized and politically engaged. Indeed, I could find few scholarly articles on the legal dimensions of Aboriginal families and child placement decisions in Canada. As I proceeded, I felt as though I was in conversation with Marlee's work in this area. That said, I approach the topic with a different lens and from a different perspective. I pursue some questions about children's cultural identity that are not explored in her work and argue in favour of anti-essentialist understandings of cultural formation. I examine the importance given to cultural connection in the best interests test in child custody law as well as child welfare determinations. This article is the product of research into the importance of culture, community, and racism in child placement decisions in Canada.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".