Accessibility of child protection investigations during pandemic: A qualitative analysis of court proceedings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Qualitative research using published court records to examine contextual factors that contribute to child protection decisions in cases involving parents with intellectual disabilities is limited, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: The present study conducted qualitative content analysis on 10 published Ontario court cases to study child protection decision-making between 2019 and 2021. RESULTS: The findings corroborated previous literature with nine out of 10 cases resulting in loss of child custody. Four major themes emerged from content analysis: (1) Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on cases; (2) Systemic barriers to accessibility; (3) Attitudes and bias toward parents with intellectual disabilities; and (4) Ultimate reliance on intellectual disability status for final custody decision. CONCLUSIONS: Conducting content analysis on published court cases is useful in learning about accessibility barriers for parents with intellectual disabilities and may help in understanding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the child protection system.
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 | 0.021 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".