MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3184325317 · doi:10.1111/jfcj.12199

Using Emancipation Checklists with Youths Aging Out of Foster Care: An Example from Prince George’s County

2021· article· en· W3184325317 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Corey S. Shdaimah, Alicia Summers, Eunsong Park

Bibliographic record

VenueJuvenile and Family Court Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Welfare and Adoption
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeorge (robot)EmancipationGerontologyFoster carePsychologySociologyHistoryPolitical scienceMedicineLawArt historyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study examined implementation of a 12‐item questionnaire, the Emancipation Checklist, designed to help child welfare judicial decision‐makers (JD) identify and monitor older youth achievement of milestones toward adulthood. Drawing on case file reviews, focus groups with professional stakeholders and young adults, and court observations, we found that stakeholders, including youths in foster care, viewed the EC as helpful in catalyzing conversation and follow up. Inconsistent use and documentation and ambiguity of some questions impeded its value. We provide recommendations for clear and consistent use, follow up, and further research to examine the impact of the EC on readiness for adulthood.

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)0.000
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 score0.254
Threshold uncertainty score0.666

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJuvenile and Family Court JournalSame topicChild Welfare and AdoptionFrench-language works237,207