MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996276971 · doi:10.7202/1065824ar

Adoption, unwed mothers and the powers of the Children’s Aid Society in Ontario, 1921-1969

2019· article· en· W2996276971 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Lori Chambers

Bibliographic record

VenueOntario History · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMandateIdeologyContext (archaeology)White (mutation)State (computer science)Child supportSociologyPsychologySocial psychologyPolitical scienceLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canadian historians have not explored the means by which babies were acquired for adoption placement. The majority of children relinquished for adoption have historically been born to unwed mothers. How did the law frame the unwed mother’s relationship with the state and to her child? To what degree did the unwed mother exercise free and unfettered choice in relinquishing an infant for adoption? This article explores these questions. It is argued that the law denied unwed mothers choice; in a context of financial constraints at the CAS, ideological commitment to the adoption mandate, and a demand for (healthy white) babies, unwed mothers were subjected to coercive pressure to relinquish their babies. This article uses 563 adoption case files to illustrate these themes.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.562
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.166
Teacher spread0.160 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOntario HistorySame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207