MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953724013 · doi:10.1177/1044389419847319

What Constitutes Risk of Future Maltreatment Among Young Mothers? An Examination of Child Protection Investigations in Ontario, Canada

2019· article· en· W2953724013 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Bryn King, Barbara Fallon, Ami Goulden, Carolyn O’Connor, Joanne Filippelli

Bibliographic record

VenueFamilies in Society The Journal of Contemporary Social Services · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusWelfareMental healthOccupational safety and healthMedicineYoung adultPsychologyChild protectionSuicide preventionDevelopmental psychologyPoison controlEnvironmental healthPsychiatryNursingPopulationPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite younger maternal age being a risk factor for child welfare involvement, the literature on decision making once young mothers are investigated for child protection concerns is limited. This article examines characteristics and decision making related to investigating workers' determinations that young children of adolescent and young adult mothers are at risk of future maltreatment. Using a provincially representative data set, this study found that children of young mothers were more likely to be deemed at risk of future maltreatment than those of adult mothers, and this assessment was also related to more intensive child welfare involvement. Among young mothers, a risk determination was strongly associated with maternal mental health concerns and socioeconomic circumstances. Practice and policy shifts should address the need for timely and effective material and emotional supports.

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)0.005
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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations15
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFamilies in Society The Journal of Contemporary Social ServicesSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207