MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W322801330 · doi:10.18584/iipj.2015.6.1.5

Long Time Overdue: An Examination of the Destructive Impacts of Policy and Legislation on Pregnant and Parenting Aboriginal Women and their Children

2015· article· en· W322801330 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Cyndy Baskin, Carol Strıke, Bela McPherson

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Indigenous Policy Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationWelfarePovertyBureaucracyIndigenousRacismPolitical scienceTheme (computing)Economic growthCriminologySociologyPublic relationsLawEconomicsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Today, in Canada, Aboriginal peoples continue to experience marginalization, over representation in the child welfare system, and a higher prevalence of poverty and substance misuse challenges. These experiences affect for Aboriginal women in particular because of the oppressive experiences of systemic racism and discrimination they face, including legislation such as the Indian Act and the Child and Family Services Act, which directly targets them. This article is based on a research project conducted in Toronto, Ontario that implemented Aboriginal research methodologies to explore ways to increase collaboration between Aboriginal families, treatment counsellors, and child welfare workers. One significant theme that emerged out of this project was the concept of time as related to policy and legislation that negatively impact Aboriginal pregnant and/or parenting women. In this analysis, we focus on the concept of time as connected to four policy areas that emerged from the findings: historical trauma caused by discriminatory legislation, the family court system, the bureaucracy of child welfare, and the need for further research and long-term solutions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.316 · 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.

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

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Indigenous Policy JournalSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207