Addressing high-risk runaway youth: issues in collaboration, accountability, and risk-management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last two decades, we as a society have built an array of youth-focused treatment interventions and community-based services geared toward homeless and runaway youth that is far more advanced than ever before. The dynamic nature of social, health, and justice services carries increased fiscal and social responsibility in society. A review of extant literature on high-risk missing and runaway youth highlights a plethora of information on youth homelessness, sexual exploitation, and missing persons. However, a paucity of research on collaborative and coordinated community responses to high-risk missing and runaway youth, as well as complexities in defining the terms missing and runaway illustrates the need for more directed research. Based on findings drawn from research papers, reports, and websites that were predominantly found under the categories of youth homelessness and runaways, this paper: highlights the challenges of finding scholarly papers that systematically and consistently define missing and runaway youth describes the current response, in both practice and policy, of the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) and the Victoria Police Department (VicPD) of British Columbia (BC) and discusses opportunities to implement a more collaborative response to integrated case management. --Leaf ii.
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 | 0.050 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".