Cross-Cultural Mobility and Agency in Assessing the Appropriateness of Child Supervision in the Context of Cultural Diversity and Migration in Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Confusion over what constitutes appropriate childrearing practices in culturally diverse settings may result in the stigmatization of ethnic minority families and over-reporting to child welfare services. This study explored stakeholders’ views on (in)adequate supervision across cultural and socioeconomic groups and how they assess the risk of harm in cases of lack of supervision. Focus group discussions were held with (a) adult caregivers (n = 39) and adolescents (n = 63) in family-based care from French-speaking Quebecers and migrants from Latin America, the Caribbean, and South Asia; and (b) professionals (n = 67) in the education, health, child welfare, and security sectors in Quebec. The main criteria used to assess the appropriateness of supervision were the maturity, level of ability, age, and sex of the child, as well as contextual factors, such as proximity of other people, location, and type and duration of the activity. Mobility and immobility notions are used to explore the developmental considerations of competence and readiness within the home and in other social environments where adults’ and children’s perceptions of safety and maturity may differ, as well as the need to move away from rigid policy implementation. This paper advocates for careful consideration of the capacity and agency of children affected by migration in the provision of childcare support and their meaningful participation in research and decision making in matters that affect them.
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".