A guided framework for redesigning the Family Connection Centre (FCC) model in British Columbia and connecting back to nature’s ethics of “nested care”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In October 2021, the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) announced a new centralized hub model in British Columbia branded as Family Connection Centres (FCCs) that would replace and eliminate the Autism Funding Program by the Spring of 2025. While the intentions of FCCs are to create a new model of care that is designed to support children and youth from birth up to nineteen years of age with developmental challenges and create easier access and navigation of services for families and caregivers, it has not come without its share of significant concerns from professionals and communities across BC. The intent of this research project is to provide a guided framework to address the concerns that have been raised and include important recommendations from Foundry, a well-established youth agency in BC, as well as incorporating essential ethics from nature that will help to design a better agency structure and model. The proposed framework will focus on building from existing services and unique family networks, as well as connecting back to land and nature, to support and raise healthy children and create strong, connected familial communities.,
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 | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".