Bibliographic record
Abstract
Beginning in the 1960s, large numbers of Aboriginal children in Canada were removed from their families by provincial child welfare services. Known as the “sixties scoop,” the practice caused great harm to individuals and families and devastated communities. Today Aboriginal children comprise roughly half the children in state care, but since the 1980s, bands and tribal councils have developed unique community-based child welfare services to better protect Aboriginal children. Protecting Aboriginal Children explores contemporary approaches to the protection of Aboriginal children through interviews with practising social workers employed at Aboriginal child welfare organizations and the child protection service in British Columbia. It places current practice in a sociohistorical context, describes emerging practice in decolonizing communities, and identifies the effects of political and media controversy on social workers. This is the first book to document emerging practice in Aboriginal communities and describe child protection practice simultaneously from the point of view of the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal social worker. Those working in child welfare or contemplating a career in child protection will find the book an insightful analysis of current practice thinking and experience. Aboriginal peoples with an interest in health and human services, as well as social work students, child welfare workers and administrators, and health, education, and human service professionals will find it particularly useful.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.007 |
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".