Residential Youth Workers’ Perceptions of Grief and Loss in Residential Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Youth in residential care typically experience significant losses during their childhood, which often result in grief. The presence of supportive adults who acknowledge these losses has been found to be a significant protective factor for youth in residential care. Residential youth workers consistently interact with the children they support; thus, they have a unique opportunity to address children’s losses and associated grief. This project uses a mixed methods design to explore how residential youth workers conceptualize and account for grief and loss. Specifically, we explore service providers’ perceptions of how loss affects children’s behavior. Three narrative vignettes describing a hypothetical child’s behavior were used to elicit these opinions. Residential youth workers (n = 101) were recruited from British Columbia to complete a brief questionnaire that assessed their perceptions of behaviors they encounter and their experiences supporting grieving youth. A one-way ANOVA revealed no statistically significant group differences; however, a thematic analysis revealed that while grief and loss are often accounted for, participants feel under-resourced to provide grief-informed care to a population experiencing complex losses. The findings suggest that clinical and policy changes are necessary to better support residential youth workers and the youth they care for.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".