The transition to adult income supports for youth that received special education in British Columbia, Canada: A cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Youth in special education have complex needs that are supported across multiple systems. Our research investigates the use of adult income assistance, as one structure that supports youth as they transition to adulthood. We created a cohort of youth (5-22 years old) using linked administrative data from British Columbia government ministries from 1996 to 2018. Youth were grouped by their special education funding (most to least; Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, Unfunded, and no special education). We investigated (1) youth characteristics and service use patterns, (2) which youth used income supports after the child-to-adult transition (19-22 years old), and what youth characteristics and service use patterns were associated with use, and (3) how much income support they used (CAD$). Of 174,527 youth, 254 (0.1%) were Level 1, 6020 (3.4%) were Level 2, 4409 (2.5%) were Level 3, 21,232 (12.2%) were Unfunded, and 142,612 (81.7%) were not in special education. Youth assigned higher funding levels, compared to lower levels, generally had increased service use, and in the transition to adult services were more likely to use income supports, and received more income support. An important exception was youth with serious behavioural/mental health special education funding (Level 3), who had increased service use for their level of funding, but received less income support due to a reliance on Temporary versus Disability Assistance. Youth that received an accredited diploma were less likely to use income supports. Factors related to the use of income supports are further described. This study highlights differences in access to income support when youth transition to adult services and considerations around equitable access to support.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".