Re-imagining Canada’s Child Welfare Paradigm: A Collective Ethnographic Case Study of Canadian and Finnish Child Welfare Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation analyzes state-family relations in Canada, and collectively alongside Finland, as they relate to mothering and child welfare. In response to calls from the Canadian Federal Ministry of Child and Youth Services (2015) to increase access to preventative services and family support, this research project endeavours to contribute to the conversation of child welfare reform. With the application of a sociological lens, and situated within the disciplinary framework of Sociology of the Family, this research employs a collective ethnographic case study that facilitates an integrated analysis of theory, policy, practice, and lived experiences to explore the entanglement of gender, race, situational vulnerability, intensive mothering, and social constructs of risk. The whole of this dissertation adopts a manuscript-style format. Together, the three manuscripts that compile the body of this research, knit together to produce a meaningful analysis that confirms, as well as offers insight, into the necessity of doing child welfare differently in Canada. The goal to re-imagine Canada’s current child welfare paradigm is explored in this space. The research here argues that the vision, which accompanies calls for greater access to proactive resources as a branch of Canada’s child welfare paradigm, requires a shift in state-family relations. This shift must not only strive to understand past relations involved in the delivery of Canadian child welfare, but situate the current paradigm, and look towards practical reform with insight derived from other nations. Part of this reform analysis is based on a collective analysis with Finland’s approach to child welfare. Although Finland is not without its own social problems, Finland’s recognition as one of the best countries in the world to be a mother invites global attention in the quest to re-imagine how child welfare can be done differently.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".