MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381190248 · doi:10.32920/23541612.v1

Why are we so Black? A review of the literature on the educational experiences of Black youth in Ontario’s child welfare system

2023· review· en· W4381190248 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Travonne Edwards

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Welfare and Adoption
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRacismWelfareWelfare systemGovernment (linguistics)Economic JusticePolitical scienceGender studiesSociologyEconomic growthCriminologyEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Black youth and families are overrepresented in the child welfare system within Canada and are at increased risk of being reported to Children’s Aid Societies (CAS) by professionals and community members, are more frequently placed in out of home care, have longer involvement with CAS, and lower likelihood of being reunited with their biological families or being adopted (Clarke, 2012). The overrepresentation of young Black people in child welfare reflects broader systemic racism faced by Black Canadians in areas such as education and justice. For the last several decades, the provincial government of Ontario has launched various initiatives to address systemic racism faced by Black youth, including education and the child welfare system, but none to address the intersection of both systems (Anti-Racism Directorate, 2017). </p>

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.562
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicChild Welfare and AdoptionFrench-language works237,207