MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2728053702

Switzerland's Apology for Compulsory Government-Welfare Measures: A Social Justice Turn?

2017· article· en· W2728053702 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ursula M. Baer

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Justice A Journal of Crime Conflict & World Order · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMilitary, Security, and Education Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeglectGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceConceptualizationSociologyEconomic growthCriminologyMedicineEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AT THE END OF THE FIRST DECADE OF THIS CENTURY, THE OFFICIAL governments and churches of several countries--as diverse as Australia, Austria, Canada, England, Germany, Ireland, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, Switzerland and United States--apologized in unprecedented numbers to former and youth in these Western states' and to their once-considered undesirable and/or non-conforming families. Universities, pharmaceutical companies, and business federations have also started to acknowledge their complicity in historical exploitation of in care. Often, these official acknowledgments of mistreatment are accompanied with or preceded by a growing number of other reconciliatory actions. Currently, at least 18 Western countries have reviewed or are in process of reviewing abuse and neglect in institutional and/or foster family care for children, youth, and young adults (Daly 2014, Skold and Swain 2015). The extensive responsibility taken by governments, churches, and private organizations testifies to magnitude of past injustices inflicted on and their families and indicates far-reaching and innate these practices are to Western societies. Research into systemic nature of these injustices demonstrates need for a new interdisciplinary field of study devoted to long, diverse, and international history of (former) and youth in who were un-familied through heterosexually, patriarchally, and ethnoracially structured compulsory government--elfare measures. Research into this new field remains scant and primarily focuses on officials' responses to institutional abuse and on conceptualization of those reactions. Johanna Skold (2013,6), for example, questions how a historical understanding of past abuse and neglect of in out-of-home care is framed and what knowledge abuse inquiries produce. In a coauthored collection of articles, Skold and Swain (2015, 4) frame the inquiries into historical violations of children's rights as a new area within broader scholarship around transitional justice. collection of articles traces similarities in children's rights violations by including findings from different countries without erasing national particularities. Another scholar, Kathleen Daly (2014a), questions emergence of institutional abuse as a social problem and reasoning behind authorities' responses to it. Daly develops a classification system that organizes abuse cases according to whether authorities failed to protect and care for children (core cases), and practice wrongs were committed against certain groups of children (core-plus-one cases), and and practice wrongs against were embedded in a more general discrimination against a political minority (core-plus-two cases) (Daly 2014, 25). These three categories allow for institutional abuse cases (case studies) to be organized into groups, mapping international data accordingly. She focuses her research on redressing institutional abuse primarily on a comparison of Canadian and Australian processes (Daly 2014 a,b). Carol Brennan (2007) provides an in-depth view of Ireland's redress policy, focusing on Laffoy period, and draws some comparisons to policies of Australia and Canada. However, analysis of Switzerland remains essentially absent from current scholarship. This article examines Switzerland's redress policy in hopes of filling this gap. This article focuses on Switzerland's 2013 apology, Fursorgerische Zwangsmassnahmen und Fremdplatzierungen (FZ+Z; Compulsory Government-Welfare Measures and Placements with Strangers), and examines history of children's rights violations that warranted apology as well as other reconciliatory actions, paying special attention to terminology used. It is important to note that Swiss apology uniquely focuses on historical compulsory government-welfare measures and addresses all victims of these measures regardless of ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and age (yet without erasing group-specific differences). …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.026
Scholarly communication0.0130.010
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Justice A Journal of Crime Conflict & World OrderSame topicMilitary, Security, and Education StudiesFrench-language works237,207