Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Child Abuse and Neglect in Canada: A Guide for Mandatory Reporters offers a concise guide to mandatory reporting in provincial and territorial jurisdictions with specific attention to the context and unique realities of northern Canada. As an introduction to mandatory reporting, the book opens with an exploration of the historical rise of the child welfare system, mandatory reporters’ ethical duties around reporting, types of abuse and neglect, risk and protective factors, and the ascendancy of child abuse in an online environment. The latter half of the book first explores decision-making factors (legal, clinician, situational, professional, and relationship) to assist human service professionals with their decision-making. This section then explores the reporting process and offers relationship repair strategies (reporting, information, affect regulation, advocacy, resource, and cultural). The book culminates in a comprehensive, empirically based conceptual framework to assist human service professionals with decision-making and maintaining the relationship. Predicated on the author’s dissertation research Child Abuse and Neglect in Canada: A Guide for Mandatory Reporters offers students a comprehensive framework for fulfilling their professional, fiduciary obligations and provides educators with accessible teaching tools to further their students’ understanding of this area.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".