Characterizing newborn and older infant entries into care in England between 2006 and 2014
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The risk of entry to state care during infancy is increasing, both here in England and abroad, with most entering within a week of birth ('newborns'). However, little is known about these infants or of their pathways through care over early childhood. OBJECTIVE: To characterize infant entries to care in England. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: All children in England who first entered care during infancy, between April 2006 and March 2014 (n = 42,000). METHODS: We compared sociodemographic and care characteristics for infants entering care over the study period by age at first entry (newborn: <1wks, older infant 1-51wks). Among those who entered before April 2010, we further characterized care over follow-up (i.e. 4 years from first entry) and employed latent class analysis to uncover any common pathways through care. RESULTS: Almost 40 % of infants first entered care as a newborn. Most infants first entered care under s 20 arrangements (i.e. out-of-court, 60 % of newborns vs 47 % of older infants). Among infants entering before April 2010, most were adopted over follow-up (60 % vs 37 %), though many were restored to parental care (20 % vs 32 %) or exited care to live with extended family (13 % vs 19 %). One in six infants (17.7 %) had particularly unstable care trajectories over early childhood, typified by three or more placements or failed reunification. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-based strengthening of pre-birth social work support is needed to improve preventive interventions before birth, to more effectively target infant placement into care. Linkages between child protection records and information on parents are needed to inform preventive strategies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".