Voice of the Child Reports in Ontario: A Content Analysis of Interviews with Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Voice of the Child Reports have emerged as another method to hear from children involved in their parent’s dispute. Until 2016, these Reports had limited use in the province of Ontario. This paper details the content analysis of the Reports written by social workers from interviews conducted with children in the Views of the Child Reports: Ontario Pilot Project . The content analysis was performed of the written text of the interviews with 86 children (38 boys and 48 girls) to describe and gain a richer understanding of children’s views and experiences post separation before the court. There was a total of 30 social workers (27 females and 3 males) who wrote the Reports to the court. From a broad perspective, the themes that emerged from the text of the children’s interviews included the importance of sibling relationships, the negative impact of interparental conflict and subsequent child–parent relationships, and the appreciation of being listened to about their views and experiences as a result of parental separation. While there is no single best method to obtaining children’s views and experiences in parenting disputes, this study provides further evidence of the importance of hearing from children during times of parental separation and divorce.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".