MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4239835822 · doi:10.24124/2020/59033

Experiences of Indigenous mothers with the child welfare system at the birth of their child

2020· dissertation· en· W4239835822 on OpenAlexaff
Katelynn Buchner

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousPovertyWelfareNeglectFeelingPsychological interventionChild protectionPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyChristian ministryPolitical scienceMedicineSocial psychologyNursingPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The topic of Indigenous women’s experiences with the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) at the birth of their child is one that falls through the gaps of current literature. This thesis is focused on identifying the experiences of Indigenous women when MCFD intervenes at the birth of their child; the purpose is to gain insight into the strengths and weaknesses of child welfare interventions. I interviewed five Indigenous women using an interpretive description approach and analyzed the data using constant comparative analysis as well as conventional content analysis techniques. The findings highlighted the impact of child welfare involvement that included: powerful emotions, trust, communication and dismantled families; a structural power imbalance characterized as feeling powerless, being watched and judged, and jumping through hoops; addiction; socioeconomic struggles that included young mothers and homelessness, poverty, and neglect; missed preventative opportunities; the role of advocacy; identity and culture; and bonding. In conclusion, child welfare practice needs to include opportunities for preventative measures and planning to optimize support and communication with Indigenous pregnant women and mothers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicChild Abuse and Trauma→French-language works237,207→