Voices in the wilderness: Co-location meeting the needs of children in protective care.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore how access to a family medicine clinic co-locating with the Children's Aid Society (CAS) of Hamilton in Ontario helped meet the unique needs of children in care. DESIGN: Qualitative research using semistructured face-to-face and telephone interviews. SETTING: The CAS of Hamilton. PARTICIPANTS: Nineteen foster parents. METHODS: Stakeholders were invited to participate with flyers posted in the clinic, notices that were mailed to foster parents, personal invitations that were distributed during clinic visits, and an internal memo that was distributed to the CAS staff. Informed consent and assent where appropriate was obtained before an interview was started. Interviews were audiorecorded when and where feasible, transcribed, and subsequently underwent inductive, thematic analysis. Common themes evolved by consensus. MAIN FINDINGS: Foster parents valued the family medicine clinic co-locating with the CAS. The co-location helped children in care to know that there were others in similar circumstances. Foster parents learned from and shared parenting skills with one another, which resulted in developing confidence in the care they provided. The clinic became a neutral place for children in care, foster parents, and birth parents. The clinic team gathered the children's complete health records and was responsible for sharing this information when appropriate. CONCLUSION: Access to a family medicine clinic designed specifically for children in care that co-located with the CAS enhanced not only the planning, management, and evaluation of care, but also provided a consistency that was not found in other parts of the children's lives; this helped generate trusting relationships over time. The co-location provided a strong spoke in the circle of care.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".