MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891875309 · doi:10.1177/1077559518796658

Placement in Care in Early Childhood and School Readiness: A Retrospective Cohort Study

2018· article· en· W2891875309 on OpenAlexaffabout
Elizabeth Wall‐Wieler, Leslíe L. Roos, Janelle Boram Lee, Marcelo L. Urquía, Noralou P. Roos, Sharon Bruce, Marni Brownell

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Maltreatment · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Welfare and Adoption
Canadian institutionsManitoba HealthUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSiblingMedicineCohortFoster careRetrospective cohort studyCohort studyCousinDemographyPopulationPediatricsFamily medicinePsychologyDevelopmental psychologyNursingEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study examined school readiness for children placed in care of child protection services before age 5. This association was assessed using a population-based cohort of children born in Manitoba, Canada, between 2000 and 2009 ( n = 53,477) and subcohorts of discordant siblings (one sibling taken into care, one sibling not taken into care; n = 809) and discordant cousins ( n = 517). In the population analysis, children placed in care were significantly less likely to be ready for school; this difference was not seen in the discordant sibling or cousin analysis. The findings suggested that differences in school readiness for children placed in care are a result of broader social factors affecting families, not placement into care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.354
Threshold uncertainty score0.704

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild MaltreatmentSame topicChild Welfare and AdoptionFrench-language works237,207