Examining the experience of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry-Child Welfare Initiative process: a case study examining the clients' perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study has been to explore the experience of parents who were part of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry–Child Welfare Initiative (AJI-CWI). This restructuring of the child welfare system in Manitoba was the first of its kind in Canada. To date, no research has been done which explores the clients’ experience of this restructuring. This research was done using an Indigenous perspective and a qualitative and quantitative methodology and case study. Three themes were identified and discussed: Love, Trust, and Trauma. The research findings suggest that the AJI-CWI was an important and necessary change to the child welfare system for Aboriginal people in Manitoba. However, systemic issues which have been in existence since before the restructuring occurred, continue to affect the way in which child welfare services are delivered. Recommendations for child welfare practitioners, future research, policy, and education are discussed.
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".