83 10 Years Later: Revisiting the Patchwork Quilt of Child Protection in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2007, Bennett et al. characterized Canadian academic child maltreatment teams in “A survey of the 16 Canadian child and youth protection programs: A threadbare patchwork quilt”. This was the first Canadian study to assess the system of care for maltreated children in hospital-based protection programs. Many changes have occurred in the field in the last decade including the introduction of an Area of Focused Competence by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and the development of Child and Youth Advocacy Centres. This study aimed to expand and update the knowledge gained from the original project. The goal was to help understand the current structure, functioning, and experiences of child maltreatment teams in Canada. We aimed to describe changes in the field over the last decade from the perspective of the program directors. A mixed-methods design was utilized and letters of invitation were sent to all directors of Canadian academic child maltreatment teams. An online survey was distributed using REDCap, to collect quantitative data on composition of the teams. The directors participated in one-on-one semi-structured interviews to gather qualitative information regarding their experiences working within their teams and the specialty. Where possible comparisons were made to the Bennett publication. 15/15 child maltreatment teams participated in the online survey. Data on team composition, programs for mental health and sexual abuse, peer review, funding, education, and research were gathered. From 12 qualitative interviews information on the programs’ identified strengths and needs, team leaders’ experiences, and reflections on the past decade were gathered. A qualitative analysis thematic approach was used to identify overarching themes that emerged throughout the discussions. Exemplar quotes were selected which highlighted themes such as “need for mental health resources”, “improving evidence and structure in the field”, “a changing landscape”, and “the importance of team dynamics”. Comparing results to the Bennett study demonstrates wide variation in program resources and structure. Documentation varies significantly across the country with no national database in place. Program directors noted a “changing landscape” in the past decade specifically in the court system, knowledge base, and formal specialization of the field. Through a combination of survey data and qualitative interviews, information on the structure, function, and experiences of Canadian child maltreatment teams was collected. Child maltreatment continues to be an important health and social issue and disseminating this data is important to inform research, education, and resource planning.
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 | 0.022 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.041 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".