Parents with Disabilities Involvement in the Child Welfare System: A Twenty-First Century Bibliography.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the following compilation of sources is not intended to be comprehensive, it does demonstrate a dramatic increase in attention to the involvement of parents with disabilities in the child welfare system by researchers and practitioners. Part 1 of this bibliography includes peer reviewed articles published since 2000. Prior to the twenty-first century there were only a few researchers interested in the involvement of parents with disabilities in the child welfare system, but there is now considerable international research interest in this issue. This bibliography includes references for 134 peer reviewed articles that have been published since 2000, including 63 that have been published between 2015-2021. There are now researchers from around the world studying this topic, including researchers from Australia, Canada, Finland, Iceland, Israel, The Netherlands, Norway Poland, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The research topics range from prevention strategies to assessment of parental capacity to prevalence and experiences of parents with disabilities in the child welfare system to intervention to support parents with disabilities. Part 2 includes book chapters, reports, newsletters and other materials related to parents with disabilities involvement in the child welfare system.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.006 |
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".