Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although much has been written in the field of family history since Phillipe Aires' Centuries of Childhood (1962), the study of foster care in its various forms has received less attention. Themes concerning orphans and foster children do, however, appear guite often in literature and dramatic works. Two academic articles from Iceland and Brazil respectively discuss historical material relating to foster children and orphans in the 19th century. Themes from these articles, about the role of kin and neighbours in foster care, and the use of orphans to meet labour shortages, are discussed as background to the B.C. study. The constitutional-legal framework and social welfare policies adopted in British Columbia in the 1900-1930 period were under Anglo-American influence, with influences from Ontario being most direct. B.C. established some level of economic security for women and children with the establishment of women's pensions in 1920 and in 1927 the B.C. Survey of Child Welfare made recommendations for supervised foster care, that is, foster care subsidized by government and supervised by social workers. Although the legislation mandated "approved foster homes" as early as 1901, and envisaged temporary placement with children's aid societies (CAS) until such homes could be found, the annual reports and discharge summaries of the CASs, and the records of the Superintendent of Neglected Children show that this option was largely ignored. Not until overcrowding and medical crises forced the issue did CASs turn to foster care as an option.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".