Risk of children being taken into care amongst Metis parents experiencing incarceration: A linked administrative data study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectivesIndigenous children in Canada, including Metis children, are taken into care by the child welfare system at a disproportionately high rate. The objective of this study was to explore factors related to having a child taken into care from Metis families in Manitoba, and specifically from Metis mothers experiencing incarceration. ApproachThe cohort comprised all mother-child dyads in Manitoba, Canada with live births between Jan 1, 2004-Dec 31, 2014. The factors we examined included the mother experiencing incarceration after the birth of a child, having prior interaction with the legal system, socioeconomic status, maternal age, and mother’s mental health disorder diagnoses. Using the Cox proportional hazards model, unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios describing the risk of a child being taken into care by five years of age were generated for three exposure groups: no incarceration, prenatal incarceration, and postnatal incarceration. ResultsBefore adjustment, mothers experiencing incarceration after the birth of a child had greater risk of having a child taken into care (HR 9.3; 95% CI 7.7-11.3) compared with women who did not experience incarceration; after adjusting for measured confounders, their elevated risk dropped to aHR 6.1 (5.0-7.4). After further adjustment for prior custody in the prenatal period, mothers experiencing incarceration had 3.8 times the risk (3.0-5.0), and after adjusting for maternal mental health disorders, this dropped to 2.6 times the risk (2.0-3.4). In fully adjusted models, other factors associated with having a child taken into care included receiving diagnoses for a substance use disorder (aHR 2.6; 2.1-3.2) and for psychosis (aHR 2.4; 1.4-4.1) during the five years prior to the child’s birth. ConclusionDue to colonialism, Metis women experience high levels of social and mental health complexity, placing their children at increased risk of being taken into care. Responding to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action to redress the harms of colonialism is necessary to support Metis children’s health and well-being.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".