MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320500467 · doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcad066

Children’s Rights to Participate in out-of-Home Care: International Social Work Contexts, Claudia Equit and Jade Purtell (eds.)

2023· article· en· W4320500467 on OpenAlexaffabout
Annie Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueThe British Journal of Social Work · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Welfare and Adoption
Canadian institutionsVancouver Native Health SocietyUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologySocial workWork (physics)JADE (particle detector)Library scienceMedia studiesPolitical scienceLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children’s Rights to Participate in Out-of-Home Care, edited by Claudia Equit and Jade Purtell, contains a range of thought-provoking articles from scholars in Australia, North America and Europe about the rights of looked-after children and adolescents to participate in the decisions that affect them. The book weaves across the globe considering young people’s participation in the informal and formal decision-making processes available to them within the child welfare system. The complex issue of participation is considered from both a theoretical and practical standpoint, and a common theme that quickly emerges is the universality of the barriers that exist to ensuring meaningful participation for young people growing up outside of their biological family. The book is largely framed in the context of Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), which sets out children’s rights to participate in decisions that affect them. Case studies and other qualitative methodologies are used to discuss various countries’ commitment to young people’s participation. It quickly becomes clear that different countries approach their responsibilities to young people who are unable to live with their biological families in a myriad of different ways, and operate within different child welfare policies and practices. However, it just as quickly becomes painfully apparent that each country could be doing better with regard to the practical implementation of their commitment to Article 12.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe British Journal of Social WorkSame topicChild Welfare and AdoptionFrench-language works237,207