Responding to social and emotional vulnerability: Child welfare investigations involving older adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In 2018, the child welfare system in Ontario, Canada, expanded the age of protection to include 16 and 17 year olds for the purpose of mitigating risk of harm for older adolescents. To date, there is little information regarding investigations of older adolescents, particularly in Ontario; this study will address this gap. Data used for this analysis were drawn from the Ontario Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect‐2018. The Ontario Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect‐2018 sample data were weighted to derive an annual incidence estimate of 155 649 maltreatment‐related investigations conducted in Ontario in 2018. Child, caregiver, household, and investigation characteristics were compared across three age groups: children (0–10), younger adolescents (11–15), and older adolescents (16–17). Characteristics and differences in the likelihood of a service response (referral to nonchild welfare services, transfer to ongoing child welfare services, or placement in out‐of‐home care during the investigation) were examined descriptively and using chi‐square automatic interaction detection. Half of investigations involving older adolescents received a service response, and they were more likely to receive a service response when there were concerns about future risk of harm, where there were concerns about the relationship between the adolescent and their caregivers, where internalizing or externalizing symptoms were noted, where caregivers had few social supports, and where the household experienced economic hardship. These findings suggest that older adolescents are being triaged for circumstances that reflect concerns about their vulnerability, including mental health needs, attachment concerns, and caregiver isolation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".