MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294710564 · doi:10.1177/08862605221120911

A Multilevel Examination of Whether Child Welfare Worker Characteristics Predict the Substantiation Decision in Canada

2022· article· en· W4294710564 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kristen Lwin, Barbara Fallon, Joanne Filippelli, Nico Trocmé

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Interpersonal Violence · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWelfareContext (archaeology)PsychologyHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlMedicineDevelopmental psychologyApplied psychologyEnvironmental healthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The decision to substantiate a report of child maltreatment represents a key decision point in the child welfare service decision-making continuum. This decision has various potential implications for children and their families, which may include more intensive child welfare involvement or the cessation of services. The substantiation decision is determined by whether there is enough evidence to suggest that maltreatment or the risk of maltreatment has occurred. To date, there has been minimal exploration of whether child welfare worker characteristics might influence this critical decision point. The Decision-Making Ecology would suggest that indeed, worker characteristics play a role in how they carry out their role. Given the importance of this decision point, this study uses secondary data to examine whether worker characteristics, such as education level and type, ethnoracial identity, caseload, and experience, predict substantiation in the Canadian child welfare context. Furthermore, this study utilizes multilevel modeling, a theoretically important and unique method of analyzing organizational data that considers differences in decisions among child welfare workers. The final model included 4,327 children and 567 workers from across Canada. Several case level factors (e.g., child age and functioning, caregiver risk factors) predicted the substantiation decision. Furthermore, and most importantly for this study, worker characteristics significantly predicted their substantiation decision. Workers with fewer years of experience, those in an Ongoing Services role, and with a lower caseload substantiated significantly more often than those with more work experience, in another role, and with higher caseloads. Lastly, caseload and years of experience, and training and caseload both interacted to predict the substantiation decision. Implications for policy and practice and future research areas are discussed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Interpersonal ViolenceSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207