Assessing the Effectiveness of Coroners’ Inquests in Relation to Child Maltreatment Fatalities: A Human Rights Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The potential of the coroner’s office in Ontario to reduce the incidents of child maltreatment-related fatalities is assessed through an examination of the four inquests completed between 2000 and 2015 involving the deaths of children connected with the child welfare system. Applying a human rights perspective rooted in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, it is argued that a concern for the fundamental legal entitlements of children has been little in evidence at the inquests of child fatalities, detracting from the ability of these proceedings to contribute to the prevention of maltreatment-related child deaths. Data derived from the juries’ verdicts at these inquests are compared with the rights and principles prescribed in the Convention with a view to assessing the extent to which the latter are implicated in the former. Findings of note include the absence of a simple instance in which the Convention or its provisions were explicitly referenced in the inquest verdicts, a startling fact given Canada’s obligations under international law to a treaty dedicated to the preservation of the life and wellbeing of children.
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 | 0.105 | 0.342 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".