The Mirror Project: Reflections on the Experiences of African-American Female Adolescents Experiencing Foster Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the author Zora Neale Hurston says, "If you're silent about your pain, they'll kill you and say you enjoyed it." The Mirror Project (MP) aims to break this silence by giving voice to Black women who have experienced foster care in Portland, Oregon during their adolescence. In focus groups and interviews, participants shared their stories. Racial identity development theory, phenomenology and Afrocentric feminist epistemology provided lenses for gaining insight into their experiences in a predominantly white city. The MP revealed six themes: lack of youth engagement in foster care decisions, the need for a cultural lens in social work, foster home abuse, the impact of placement decisions, the youth's locus of control, and healing and resilience. These insights from the participants can inform advocacy efforts and culturally relevant social work practices. The MP experience was cathartic and culturally affirming; also healing by the power of sharing one's truth. Amplifying these voices makes visible the social and emotional needs of African-American girls in foster care and provides recommendations for minimizing harm and maximizing healing and resilience. This research contributes to the field of social work and supports our growth as helpers in our community working towards inclusive and supportive systems of 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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".