A scoping review of birth alerts: A Canadian context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This scoping review examines the history and application of birth alerts in Canada, from social work, legal, policy, and social justice lenses. In Canada, child welfare authorities developed a practice commonly known as birth alerts. This evolved across the country in an uneven fashion but has certainly been active since the early 2000s. There are many criticisms including causing undue trauma with children and families and disrupting early attachment as well as focus on Indigenous women in Canada as an example of racial bias (Doenmez et al. 2022). Since the release of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Women and Girls (2019) report, provinces and territories have ended the practice. Literature reviewed examine birth alerts, pre-birth child welfare involvement and child welfare involvement at the birth of a child. Primarily, Canadian sources are used; however, countries with similar child welfare structures such as Australia, the UK, and the USA are considered. Studies using various methods have been included: qualitative, quantitative, mixed-method, systematic reviews, grey literature, and case law. This review uses the JBI Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methods for scoping reviews (Peters et al. 2015).
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".