Bibliographic record
Abstract
The history of residential care for children and young people is quite extensive and features positive stories of resilience and adult-child relationships as well as negative stories of institutional abuse and the abdication of adult responsibility (Coldrey, 2001; Sen et al., 2008). Residential child care has manifested itself in many different ways over the past century. We have accounts of orphanages in Europe, residential schools for aboriginal children in Canada and settlement homes for the children of immigrant families in the United States (Addams, 1910; Korczak, 1925; Chrisjohn & Young, 1997). Over the course of twentiethcentury history, residential child care has shifted from voluntary and often faith-based initiatives, to large institutional organisations run by medical or social work professionals, to much more community-based and often much smaller programmes staffed by professional child and youth workers (Anglin, 2002). When we think of residential child care today, we are thinking typically of professional organisations operating within a variety of public and private sectors. In Canada these can include shelters for young people who are homeless, group homes, children’s mental health centres that provide treatment for children, young people and often their families, and child welfare programmes that care for children and young people who are unable to live with their families for reasons of safety and well-being.
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 | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".