Bringing ‘care’ back into locked residential institutions: What can we learn from adolescents' experiences of secure care?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In Canada and elsewhere, efforts have been made to regulate the use of secure care on welfare grounds. Yet, studies raise questions about its usefulness as a psychosocial intervention since it appears to be mostly experienced as a punishment. The main objective of the current study was therefore to explore adolescents' experiences of secure care. We conducted qualitative interviews with 25 adolescents aged 14 to 17 years old while they were placed in secure care units in the province of Quebec, Canada. Uncertainty regarding how to exit secure care was the most important theme that emerged. Participants did not always understand the words used by practitioners to frame their expectations. Adolescents were also uncertain about how to prove they no longer presented a risk to others or themselves while being in locked settings. This uncertainty generated a lot of anger and distress. To get some control back, adolescents chose to just comply and pretend to agree with practitioners. The present paper questions the utility and even legitimacy of secure care as it is currently used. However, we argue that if an ethic of care predominated our conceptualisation of secure care, rather than an ethic of justice, adolescents could feel both secure and cared 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 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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".