Developments and challenges implementing Bill C-92 in Canada: a critical rapid review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on a critical rapid review, this article examines the developments and limitations of implementing An Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families, S.C. 2019 (CAN) (Bill C-92) in Canada and among Indigenous communities in Ontario. Despite progress made by First Nations communities reclaiming sovereignty over child and family services since Bill C-92 became law on January 1, 2020, many challenges related to national standards, jurisdiction, funding, accountability, and data collection remain. Findings related to the history of child welfare services for Indigenous Peoples in Ontario, the context of legislation and implementation of Bill C-92, and the principal limitations of implementing Bill C-92 are presented. This review revealed limited results of studies completed in the province of Ontario. While Bill C-92 is a step towards addressing the systemic discrimination of Indigenous Peoples, there are still significant challenges to be addressed that ensure its effective implementation.
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 | 0.037 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 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".