Bibliographic record
Abstract
At a time when the Canadian child welfare is at a crossroads and strives for a direction that leads to better outcomes and engagement with the families and service providers, placing the Canadian child’s welfare in the international context of child protection is essential for improving the system and learning from others. This phenomenological research endeavours to compare the child protection systems of Canada and England from the legislation perspective, with the focus on the definitions of child abuse and neglect, in order to identify some of their similarities and differences and capture some aspects of the child protection workers’ experience with the legislation and with these definitions. Furthermore, this explorative paper examines the implication of the legislation and the definitions of child abuse and neglect on the day-to-day work of the child protection workers who have experience in working in both countries – Canada and England – and identifies some of the similarities and differences of the two child protection systems. The child-protection system in Canada and England has undergone many changes over the years to ensure the safety and wellbeing of all children, but the direct implications of these changes on the child-protection workers and their day-to-day work is little known and understood. While in England the child protection legislation is consistent along the country, in Canada each province/territory has its own legislation in child protection, and therefore each of them has policy manuals, guides and protocols providing working definitions of abuse and criteria used in making determinations of abuse. The legislation and policy in child protection act as essential tools in the interventions with the main focus to keep children safe. In order to ensure that the children have the right to live a life free from any form of maltreatment, most countries have developed their own child-protection system, which is highly influenced by the cultural and socio-economic context of that specific country, as well as by the needs of its various communities.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.033 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".