Pushed, Dropped, or Fleeing from Care: The Narratives and Adultification of Black Youth Who Have Aged out of Ontario’s Child Welfare System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Black youth have consistently reported that when they are transitioning from out-of-home care (OOHC) into independence, they are not supported or included in decision-making, and they feel isolated and vulnerable as they face an uncertain future. Previous research has documented the ways in which Black youths’ experiences in care are characterized by unpredictability and loss, but then care ends—and they continue to struggle. For Black youth in care, this transition can be exceptionally difficult as they are contending with the additional strain of doing so within the child welfare system and larger social context characterized by a loss of community and the persistence of anti-Black racism. Presently, there are no empirical studies in Ontario that investigate Black youth’s narratives transitioning from OOHC; this manuscript seeks to fill this gap in knowledge. Employing Adultification and Anti-Black Racism Theory as theoretical frameworks, this qualitative study investigated the narratives of 27 Black youth with lived experiences navigating OOHC in Ontario’s child welfare system. This study utilized narrative inquiry as a methodological approach. Three main narratives were identified: (1) the need for finances and a financial literacy; (2) narratives of aging out and (3) the challenges of navigating funding. To better support Black youth in their transition out of care and in independent living, recommendations for policy and practice include earlier transitional support, ensuring youth have a practical understanding of financial literacy, and educating youth about resources and their rights.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".