The Significance of Relationships in Black Youth's Narratives of Out‐of‐Home Care in Ontario's Child Welfare System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT For youth in the child welfare system, relationships can be a catalyst for change and resilience. Child welfare workers are responsible for caring for youth, ensuring their permanency, and—wherever possible—maintaining relationships between youth and their families. Unfortunately, not all youth feel supported during their time in out‐of‐home care (OOHC). For black youth, research has begun to document the challenges and disparities they face while in the child welfare system. Given the adversities that black youth and families face across the child welfare continuum, there is a need to investigate the interactions between child welfare workers and black youth. This study explores the narratives of 27 black youth with lived experience navigating OOHC in Ontario's child welfare system and their relationships with child welfare workers. Three main narratives emerged: 1) the impacts of worker instability and unavailability; 2) the need for transparency, safety, and youth voice in decision‐making; and 3) what relationships meant to black youth and how they can be strengthened. Recommendations include maintaining transparency and inclusion in decision‐making, addressing factors that impact workers' capacity to build meaningful relationships, training focused on the impacts of anti‐black racism, and supporting black youth in building relationships with their families.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 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".