The Experiences of Students with Foster Care Histories Attending Christian Universities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The existing literature on college students with foster care histories almost exclusively addresses secular higher education. Of the roughly 4,000 colleges and universities in the United States, nearly 1,000 are religious based institutions, and over 150 campuses are part of the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) in the United States and Canada. However, little to no attention has been given to the experiences of students with foster care histories attending Christian universities. This study examines the lived experiences of such students. In-depth interviews were conducted with seven participants attending three residential Christian universities in two states in the western United States. Five themes emerged from the study: (1) identifying the factors that influenced students’ decision to attend a Christian university, (2) the impact of trauma and how it influenced students’ relationship with God and the Christian faith, (3) students’ foster care experience and how it shaped their identity development while in college, (4) students’ transition into college, and (5) the emotional navigation students undergo with familial relationships. We conclude with practical recommendations that Christian colleges and universities can implement to better support students with foster care backgrounds considering their unique needs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".