Youth Receiving Child Welfare Services and their Preferred Relationships With Their Service Providers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study explores the experiences of youth receiving Child Welfare Services (CWS) in Nova Scotia, Canada and their preferred relationships with different service providers and how these relationships may promote or hinder their resilience at different levels of risk exposure. Method: Qualitative interviews with 23 youth (aged 14–19) were analyzed using grounded theory. Results: The analysis revealed two core categories, relationship building and mentoring relationship as well as supporting themes that were modelled into a theoretical understanding of three distinct relationship patterns (parent-like, peer-like, and professional) that youth seek from their service providers. Findings discuss the category relationship building, comprising of two themes—youth mobility and multiple service providers; followed by a discussion on the three mentoring relationships. Conclusion: Implications address how salient features from these patterns of youth–worker relationships can be effectively integrated into service delivery.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it