10 years later: revisiting the patchwork quilt of child protection in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2007, a Paediatrics & Child Health article characterized the Canadian academic Child and Youth Protection Programs (CYPPs) depicting the wide variation in clinical services and resources across the country as 'a threadbare patchwork quilt'. This study aimed to expand and update the knowledge gained from that original project a decade later. The aim of this research was to understand the current structure, functioning, and experiences of the existing Canadian CYPPs. METHODS: A mixed-methods design was utilized and all program directors of Canadian CYPPs were invited to participate. An online survey was distributed using REDCap to collect quantitative data on program characteristics. Program directors participated in one-on-one semi-structured telephone interviews to gather qualitative information regarding their program's strengths and needs, resources, as wellas reflections on their experiences working within this evolving field. RESULTS: In total, 15 of 16 CYPP directors participated in the online survey. CYPPs remained relatively consistent in the variety of allied health care professionals on their team, and have ongoing work in research, education, and advocacy. Recurrent themes that emerged from the qualitative interview data included the strength of the team, comments on stress and wellness, expertise in the field, and desire for additional advocacy. CONCLUSION: Current information was gathered on the structure, function, and experiences of Canadian CYPPs. Areas of growth include collaborative practice at the Child and Youth Advocacy Centres and deliberate attention to wellness. Child maltreatment continues to be an important health and social issue and review of the present-day landscape is critical to better inform research, education, and resource planning.
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 | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".