Reasonable Efforts? Child Maltreatment Investigations and Service Referrals of Parents With Ascribed Cognitive Impairments in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parents with ascribed cognitive impairment (CI) are more likely than parents without CI to have their children removed by child protective services (CPS). Inequitable access to parenting and family supports and services is thought to be a contributing factor. Utilizing data on a 3-month sample of 15,980 child maltreatment investigations across Canada, including 1,244 cases featuring parents with CI, this study investigated service referrals and non-referrals. The results of this secondary data analysis suggest that, relative to need, parents with CI are less likely to be referred for matched services, including home based\reunification services post child removal. It is unclear whether disparate rates of referral are driven by a lack of inclusive services, and/or the conflation of parental CI with perceived parenting deficits. When perceived parenting deficits are attributed to parental CI, CPS may wrongly assume that these are irremediable. The findings highlight the need for building inter-sectoral service pathways in order to render appropriate assistance to parents with CI in the performance of their childrearing responsibilities.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".