The Cycle of Child Protection Services Involvement: A Cohort Study of Adolescent Mothers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine if adolescent mothers who were in the care of child protection services (CPS) when they gave birth to their first child are more likely to have that child taken into CPS care before the child’s second birthday than adolescent mothers who were not in the care of CPS. METHODS: Linkable administrative data were used to create a population-based cohort of adolescent mothers whose first child was born in Manitoba, Canada between April 1, 1998, and March 31, 2013 (n = 5942). Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) of having that first child taken into care before their second birthday were compared between mothers who were in care (n = 576) and mothers who were not in care (n = 5366) at the birth of their child by using logistic regression models. RESULTS: Adolescent mothers who were in care had greater odds of having their child taken into care before the child’s second birthday (aOR = 7.53; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 6.19–9.14). Specifically, their children had higher odds of being taken into care in their first week of life (aOR = 11.64; 95% CI = 8.83–15.34), between 1 week and their first birthday (aOR = 3.63; 95% CI = 2.79–4.71), and between their first and second birthday (aOR = 2.21; 95% CIl = 1.53–3.19). CONCLUSIONS: Findings support an intergenerational cycle of involvement with CPS. More and better services are required for adolescent mothers who give birth while in care of CPS.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".