A Critical Dialogue on Residential Care for Children and Youth: What We Really Know and Questions of Quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The conventional belief that residential care is harmful to children and youth held by many organizations and individuals has been challenged in a recent book reviewing a broad range of the recent empirical literature. In a dialogue format, we discuss the historical context in which the book developed, its key points, and the implications and questions it raises about providing and supporting high quality residential care. The negative view of residential care has its roots in the inappropriate generalization of research results on infants and very young children in deprived environments to older children in more enriched environments. The research on residential care for children and youth shows that the quality of care is more important than its site. Research also highlights the features of care that are most important to high quality, including the centrality of sensitive, reciprocal positive relationships. We offer some “wicked questions” that can be used by practitioners in their reflections on the care they provide and to begin to change the international conversation about residential care.
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 | 0.028 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.068 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.038 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.050 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".