Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poor outcomes associated with youth aging out of care are well documented. In recent years creative permanency planning projects have been heralded as promising alternatives to transition to adulthood programs with the aim of addressing this concern. In order to make permanency possible for youth the concept must be defined in a way that reflects the needs of those within this developmental stage. Researchers and youth have collaborated to create such definitions. However, few have considered a cultural element and none speak to specific populations, such as Aboriginal youth. There are significant differences between Western and Aboriginal worldviews, which, in turn, influence the permanency, need for children and youth. In Alberta, Canada, Aboriginal children and youth are vastly overrepresented in out-of-home care. Addressing the needs of Aboriginal youth in a culturally appropriate manner is critical. Cultural considerations include ideals of collectivism versus individualism, identity formation,and community healing. Yet, there is a deficit of literature related to the specific permanency needs of Aboriginal youth in out-of-home care. The Ecological theory informed by the Anishinabe medicine wheel framework provides a structure from which to discuss permanency planning for this population group. Further research exploring the views of Aboriginal youth in care on permanency and the utility of these models on this population is necessary.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".