Resistance to Assimilation: Expanding Understandings of First Nations Cultural Connection in Child Protection and Out-of-home Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures are integrated into child protection and out-of-home care (OOHC) systems via the connection element of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle (ATSICPP). This article focuses on cultural connection in Australian child protection and OOHC systems over time, from its inception to its contemporary use to improve health and wellbeing and ameliorate cultural disconnection. An expanded understanding of cultural connection in Australian OOHC systems is articulated where cultural connection is theorised as a process of culturally connecting, while a critical position concerning the risk of cultural disconnection in OOHC is held. Indigenous cultures are fundamental to individual and community health and wellbeing. However, cultural connection in Australian OOHC systems risks becoming a site of bureaucratic policy compliance to ameliorate the effects of cultural disconnection produced by disproportionate First Nations child removals. This article illuminates this critical position while theorising how culturally connecting can be better understood in OOHC.IMPLICATIONS Cultural connection for First Nations children and young people is important for health and wellbeing, but is poorly understood in child protection and out-of-home care contexts.Cultural connection includes a community element, where culture acts as a point of distinctiveness to show that Indigenous peoples are surviving. At this juncture, cultural connection is a tool to resist the assimilatory impacts associated with ongoing child protection removals.Cultural connection can be understood as a complex journey of connecting for First Nations children and young people.
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 | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".