Unaccompanied minors’ needs and the child welfare response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary This study examines a sample of 1705 cases of unaccompanied and separated children (UASCs) included in a pilot project for early recovery child protection intervention. The project was started in two Southern Italian regions; multidisciplinary teams ensured an immediate intervention at the moment of disembarkation, working on children engagement and need assessment. Data were gathered about minors’ characteristics and services activated. Descriptive information was selected to develop a profile of cases and bivariate analysis was used to assess the relationship between case characteristics and outcomes. Findings The UASCs belong to 38 different nationalities, forming a very diverse group in terms of culture, reasons for leaving their country and past experiences, most of them traumatic. A high number of children were victims of torture, maltreatment, and human trafficking. The empirical evidence highlights that, at the end of the intervention, the majority of UASCs were still hosted in first-level facilities that could respond to basic needs only. Second-level centres were not always equipped to promote their integration process. Applications Findings suggest that even if an early child protection intervention to identify children’s strengths and vulnerabilities was crucial for the children engagement, a parallel action for advocacy at national and European level needs to be carried out to raise awareness about human rights violations, the complexity of these minors’ needs, and the necessity to promote adequate services in the reception system, giving voice to these children.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".