Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract What are cultural considerations for Indigenous children involved within the Canadian child welfare system and what challenges do they pose during disclosures of abuse within child abuse investigations? A literature search was used to find resources relevant to the research question; this was obtained through Google Scholar and the University of British Columbia (UBC) library. A review of the literature was summarized to reveal themes regarding cultural considerations for Indigenous children during disclosures of abuse. Culture is a very deeply rooted phenomenon with multiple layers. We know from research that culture is a factor that can have an influence on children’s disclosures of abuse during investigations. Involved professionals who work with children from a different culture than their own, need to ensure culturally aware and safe practices. Especially when cultures have traumatic histories, such as with Indigenous Peoples in Canada.But what does this really mean during investigations of child abuse? And how does one know if a culturally safe practice is being achieved?The Eurocentric origins of the Canadian child welfare system needs to be acknowledged in order to understand how it continues to be visible in practice today. Even though Canadian provinces have recognized the need for reconciliation and culturally safe practices with Indigenous communities, literature is still lacking on specific knowledge about Indigenous children’s needs and safe approaches during their disclosures of abuse within investigations. Directly involving Indigenous communities to understand specific cultural factors and collaboration with multidisciplinary work within Child Advocacy Centres is a step in the right direction and another step toward reconciliation. It may hold the key to creating an understanding for what Indigenous children need during disclosures of abuse.
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 | 0.018 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".