Bibliographic record
Abstract
The term care has been part of the CYC title since the University of Victoria School of Child and Youth Care (CYC) opened in the 1970’s, making care a central aspect of CYC’s public and professional identity. The purpose of this research is to explore how care is conceptualized in Foundations of Child and Youth Care Practice; a Canadian textbook widely used in CYC postsecondary education programs. This text introduces future CYC practitioners to important aspects of CYC praxis, such as care. In this research I use the Trace method developed by Selma Sevenhuijsen (2004) to analyze the text. In this analysis, feminist ethics of care acts both as a lens for analyzing care and as a framework for renewing ways of thinking about and doing care in CYC. Key findings show that conceptualizations of care in the text are deeply influenced by neoliberal ‘justice’ frameworks leading to care being framed as always ‘good’ and understood as apolitical, simple and instrumental. This reveals a lack of theorizing about care in the text and suggests that understandings of care are taken for granted and devalued. These conceptualizations of care cannot account for the complexities of the care relationship and do not adequately reflect the lived experience of young people and families. This research advocates for engagement with feminist ethics of care as a starting point for re-imagining care in CYC and offers suggestions for what this might look like.
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 | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.102 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".