The ‘F’ word in child welfare. A study of British Columbia fathers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite emerging research supporting the important role of father's rights, responsibilities, and impact on children's lives, the Canadian child welfare system continues to work primarily with mothers, while ignoring fathers' participation in planning for the safe care of their children.This research explores the experiences of Canadian fathers within the child welfare system and why those patterns of experiences occurred.The aims of this research were:• to give an overview and understand the existing literature concerning fathers whose children have come in contact with the child welfare system• to examine fathers' experiences within the child welfare system• to apply feminist theory and a strength-based model to the research• to make recommendations based on the research Using a qualitative methodology of research, primary data was gathered using interviews to explore father's experiences within the child welfare system.The tool used within this methodology was a semi-structured interview, conducted with fathers who have been involved with the child welfare system.Secondary data, used to strengthen the study, was gathered through a literature review.Overall, findings from this research may shed light on why fathers continue to be on the edge of the Canadian child welfare system and could provide a springboard for future research contributing to change.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".