MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123331391

The Impact of Placing Adolescent Males into Foster Care on Education, Income Assistance, and Convictions

2014· article· en· W3123331391 on OpenAlexaffabout
William Warburton, Rebecca Warburton, Arthur Sweetman, Heather Antecol, Jane Friesen, Thomas Lemieux, Louis‐Philippe Morin, Craig Riddell, Jeff Smith, Clyde Hertzman

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Welfare and Adoption
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReceiptGovernment (linguistics)OfficerGraduation (instrument)PopulationPsychologyPolitical scienceSociologyLawDemographyEconomicsEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding the causal impacts of taking at-risk youth into government care is part of the evidence base for policy. Two sources of exogenous variation affecting alternative subsets of the at-risk population provide causal impacts interpreted as local average treatment effects. Placing 16to18-year-old males into care decreases or delays high school graduation, increases income assistance receipt, and has alternative effects on criminal convictions depending upon the instrument employed. This suggests that asking whether more or fewer children should be taken into care is insufficient; it also matters which, and how, children are taken into care. JEL classification: J13, I13 This paper arose from work undertaken during a project initiated under the Child and Youth Officer Act and the Representative for Children and Youth Act. The views expressed in this paper are solely those of the authors. This paper is not to be understood as a report under either of these acts, and no representation is made that it expresses the views of the former Child and Youth Officer, the Representative for Children and Youth, the Ministry for Children and Family Development, the Government of British Columbia or the MSFHR. Neither does it necessarily reflect the views of the government of Ontario. The authors thank the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research and the Stauffer-Dunning Chair at Queen’s University for financial support, and they acknowledge helpful comments from two referees, Heather Antecol, Jane Friesen, Thomas Lemieux, Louis-Philippe Morin, Craig Riddell, Jeff Smith, and seminar participants at SFU, UBC, McMaster, Dalhousie, Victoria, and the Canadian Economics Association annual meeting. Any errors are the responsibility of the authors. No university Human Research Ethics Board approval was required or sought for this paper because the work was performed under a nominal contract to the Child and Youth Officer and the Representative for Children and Youth. The person-level data were accessed on their premises, using their computer equipment, by W. Warburton acting as a contract researcher. The other authors had access only to research results (aggregated data). The standards for maintaining the privacy and security of personal information were at the same high level as would have been required for university research. Email: Arthur.Sweetman@McMaster.ca Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d’Economique, Vol. 47, No. 1 February / fevrier 2014. Printed in Canada / Imprime au Canada 0008-4085 / 14 / 35–69 / C © Canadian Economics Association 36 W.P. Warburton, R.N. Warburton, A. Sweetman, and C. Hertzman L’impact du fait de placer des jeunes hommes adolescents en foyer d’accueil sur l’education, l’assistance pour maintenir le revenu, et les condamnations. Comprendre les impacts causes par la prise en charge par le gouvernement d”un jeune a risques est partie integrale d’une politique fondee sur des donnees probantes. Deux sources de variation exogene affectant differentes portions de la population a risque engendrent des impacts qui sont interpretes comme ayant des effets sur le traitement local moyen. Placer des jeunes hommes de 16 a 18 ans en foyer d’accueil diminue ou retarde la diplomation au secondaire, accroit la dependance de l’aide sociale, et a des effets differents sur les condamnations au criminel selon les instruments employes. Voila qui suggere qu’il n’est pas suffisant de se demander si plus ou moins d’enfants devraient etre mis en foyer d’accueil, ce qui est important est plutot de se demander comment on prend soin des enfants.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.455
Threshold uncertainty score0.758

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.284 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicChild Welfare and AdoptionFrench-language works237,207