PREPAREDNESS FOR EMANCIPATION OF YOUTH LEAVING ALTERNATIVE CARE IN SERBIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The process of preparing young people for leaving alternative care is not sufficiently researched in Serbia. In order to define what support is necessary for their successful emancipation, this study of 150 young people in care aims to analyse both their preparedness for leaving alternative care, and whether the type of placement (kinship, foster, or residential) makes a difference to the level of preparedness. A mixed method approach was applied. Quantitatively, questionnaires assessing factors contributing to successful emancipation were administered<strong>.</strong> Qualitatively, transcripts of discussions from 5 focus groups, consisting of a total of 26 participants from all 3 types of placement, were analysed. Most of the youth in the sample indicated they have self-care and housekeeping skills, social skills to make friendships and connections, good grades in school, and aspirations for further schooling and starting a family. However, negative feelings such as disturbance, fear, and sorrow, and a sense of missing support and feeling insufficiently prepared for leaving care were also evident in their answers. Both the focus groups and surveys suggest that the biggest concern with the independence of young people leaving alternative care is financial stability. Several recommendations for ways to influence the system in order to improve outcomes for young people are made.
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 | 0.000 | 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".