Bibliographic record
Abstract
S trengthening the connection between research, policy, and practice is imper- ative if we wish to improve life chances for children in care.The number of children in care is significant, and growing.In the first edition of this book, Thériault (2003) reported that there were over 60,000 Canadian children in care in 2000, and that this constituted an increase of about 30% in the previous three years (Human Resources Development Canada, 2000).Farris-Manning and Zandstra (2003) estimated that there were 76,000 children in care in Canada by 2002, and this number has grown since that time.In an introductory chapter, Bala provides an overview of child welfare legislation in Canada, and this establishes a general context for the issues raised throughout the remaining sections of the book.Part I of this book suggests that the number of children needing care and protection increased quite dramatically between 1998 and 2003.Protecting children is not an easy task, and several authors highlight the tension between the rights of children and parents, and the care and control aspects of state intervention into family life.The challenge is to connect our growing knowledge about child welfare to policy development and evidence-based practice in order to achieve good outcomes for children growing up in care.In 1994 the editors were privileged to participate in the first Canadian Child Welfare Research and Policy Symposium funded by Health and Welfare Canada.Its aim was to determine the status of child welfare research in Canada and identify policy implications.The symposium developed an eight-point research agenda (Galaway & Hudson, 1995).In 2000, a follow-up symposium was held in Cornwall, Ontario, that enlarged the scope to include practice.Particularly encouraging was the decision in 2000 to include foster parents and to increase participation from youth in care, First Nations, and service providers.Their voices added more authenticity to the discussions that took place.xiii
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.528 | 0.337 |
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".