MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891639455 · doi:10.23889/ijpds.v3i4.636

The Overlap Between the Child Welfare and Youth Justice Systems in Manitoba, Canada

2018· article· en· W2891639455 on OpenAlex
Marni Brownell, Nathan Nickel, Lorna Turnbull, Wendy Au, Leonard MacWilliam, Oke Ekuma, Jeff Valdivia, Scott McCulloch, Janelle Boram Lee

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Population Data Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaManitoba Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCohortWelfareMedicineSocial WelfareFoster careDemographyEconomic JusticePsychiatryPopulationCohort studyCriminal justiceGerontologyPsychologyEnvironmental healthPolitical scienceCriminologySociologyNursingLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IntroductionManitoba has one of the highest rates of children taken into care of child welfare services (Child and Family Services; CFS) in the world, and also one of the highest youth incarceration rates in Canada. Policy-makers recognize there is overlap between these systems; the extent of that overlap is unknown. Objectives and ApproachWe linked CFS, Justice, and Population Health Registry data to quantify the overlap between having a history of CFS during childhood (0-17 years) and being charged with a crime as a youth (12-17 years). Using a cohort approach, we selected all individuals in Manitoba who were born in 1988 (N=28,178); those not in the province at any time from 12-17 years were excluded, leaving a final cohort of 18,182. The cohort was divided into 3 groups according to CFS involvement: CFS out-of-home care (1,148); CFS in-home services (3,395); no CFS (13,639). Criminal charges between 12-17 years were identified. Results6.3% of our cohort had CFS out-of-home care, 18.7% received CFS in-home services, and 75% had no CFS involvement. 10.5% of the cohort were charged of a crime between 12-17 years. Almost half (46.6%) of youth who had CFS out-of-home care had criminal charges, compared to 19.4% of youth who had CFS in-home services, and 5.3% of youth with no CFS. Despite accounting for only 6.3% of the cohort, youth who had out-of-home care accounted for 28.0% of youth with criminal charges. Indigenous (First Nations (FN) and Metis) children/youth were over-represented in both systems; for example, 24.5% of FN youth had been in care compared to 3.1% of non-Indigenous; and 32.2% of FN youth were charged with a crime compared to 6.6% of non-Indigenous youth. Conclusion/ImplicationsThere is substantial overlap between the child welfare and youth justice systems, with overrepresentation of Indigenous youth in both systems. Culturally appropriate programs and policies aimed at supporting parents, families and communities to care for their own children will likely have long-term positive impacts on the youth justice system.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.248
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it