MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2592346282 · doi:10.1086/691148

Poverty among Foster Children: Estimates Using the Supplemental Poverty Measure

2017· article· en· W2592346282 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Service Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Welfare and Adoption
Canadian institutionsCentennial College
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
KeywordsPovertyDemographicsGrandparentFoster careChild povertyPopulationCurrent Population SurveyScale (ratio)PaymentDemographic economicsDemographyEconomicsPsychologySocioeconomicsMedicineEnvironmental healthEconomic growthGeographyDevelopmental psychologySociologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We use data from the Current Population Survey and the new Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) to provide estimates for poverty among foster children over the period 1992 to 2013. These are the first large-scale national estimates for foster children who are not included in official poverty statistics. Holding child and family demographics constant, foster children have a lower risk of poverty than other children. Analyzing income in detail suggests that foster care payments likely play an important role in reducing the risk of poverty in this group. In contrast, we find that children living with grandparents have a higher risk of poverty than other children, even after taking demographics into account. Our estimates suggest that this excess risk is likely linked to their lower likelihood of receiving foster care or other income supports.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.644
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it