Demanding Change of Colonial Child Protection Systems Through Good Trouble: A Community‑Based Commentary of Resistance and Advocacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, led particularly by Grandmothers and Aunties, have persistently challenged statutory child protection systems and the harms they inflict on our children, families, and communities. Reflecting on our own experiences advocating for Aboriginal families and communities at the practice and systems level, this paper explores a reflective commentary approach concerning opportunities and challenges of community-based advocacy toward substantive sustained change. We note how the voices, experiences, and expertise of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people continue to be marginalised or ignored by non-Indigenous authorities, colonial systems, and practice. Despite the apologies and promises of successive governments, contemporary systems continue to reflect “past” approaches. In this context, we honour the strong women who have, and continue, to stand up for their children, families, and communities, further rallying for ongoing resistance and reform.
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 | 0.043 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.035 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".