Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. When a substantiated allegation of child maltreatment occurs, a family may be referred to the child welfare court. This court may temporarily remove children from their homes, making them dependents of the state. Over the course of a case, the judge assesses the child's needs and safety, and orders services for the family to help them reunify. Internationally, the child welfare court process is complex and lengthy, with a number of hearings that parents are required to attend, and a host of legal decisions rendered. One major decision that may arise from these proceedings is a permanent legal separation of children from their parents, referred to as a termination of parental rights. A decision to terminate parental rights can be life-altering for the entire family. Yet, very little is known about parents' experiences during child welfare court cases, particularly about their legal understanding. A lack of parent understanding may contribute to difficulties with navigating cases and complying with court mandates. Recent mixed-methods research conducted with parents in child welfare proceedings in the United States systematically examined parents' understanding. Findings revealed that parents had a limited understanding of common court terms, professionals' roles, and key processes. Furthermore, 12% of parents could not describe the judge's most recent decision in their case. Qualitative research in the United Kingdom and Canada demonstrates that parents in these countries may also experience challenges with understanding child welfare proceedings. Policy recommendations are offered to underscore the importance of assessing and promoting parents' legal understanding, globally.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.094 | 0.013 |
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".