The listen to me project: Creating lasting changes in voice and participation for children in care through a youth-led project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we present the results from a youth-led project on the voices and participation of children in state care in Ontario, Canada. The purpose of this project was for youth to share their voice about what they wish child protection workers and agencies could do to improve their experiences within the child protection system. Many youth in care in Canada and internationally report that their voices are not heard and that they are not involved in decisions involving their care. Seven themes were extracted from this voices of youth project asking child welfare workers and agencies to listen to [them] and believe [them], keep [them] informed and be honest, involve [them] in decisions, support [them], keep [them] connected,; ignite [their] passions, and don't give up on [them]. Suggestions from the youth involved in this project are offered on ways to create true and meaningful change in child welfare.
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 | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".