Infants and the decision to provide ongoing child welfare services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Infants are the most likely recipients of child welfare services; however, little is known about infants and families who come into contact with the child welfare system and factors that are associated with service provision. Investigations involving infants and their families present an unparalleled opportunity for the child welfare sector to enhance infants' safety and well-being through early identification, referral and intervention. Understanding how the child welfare system responds to the unique needs of infants and caregivers is critical to developing appropriate practice and policy responses within the child welfare sector and across other allied sectors. This study examines maltreatment-related investigations in Ontario involving children under the age of one to identify which factors are most influential to predicting service provision at the conclusion of a child welfare investigation. METHODS: A secondary analysis of the fifth cycle of the Ontario Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect (OIS) for 2013 was conducted. The OIS is a cross-sectional child welfare study that is conducted every 5 years. The most influential factors that were associated with the decision to transfer a case to ongoing services were explored through a multivariate tree-classification technique, Chi square automatic interaction detection. RESULTS: There were an estimated 7915 maltreatment-related investigations involving infants in 2013. At least one caregiver risk factor was identified in approximately three-quarters (74%) of investigations involving infants. In the majority of investigations (57%), at least one referral for specialized services was provided. Primary caregiver with few social supports was the most highly significant predictor of the decision to provide ongoing child welfare services. Primary caregiver risk factors were predominant in this model. The analysis identified subgroups of investigations involving infants for which the likelihood of being transferred to ongoing services ranged from approximately 11-97%. CONCLUSION: Caregivers of infants are struggling with numerous challenges that can adversely compromise their ability to meet the unique developmental needs of their infant. The findings underscore the importance of community and social supports in decision-making.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".