MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414413005 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v17n6p1

Sexual Development Issues of Children in Japanese Residential Care Facilities and Staff Responses: A Qualitative Study

2025· article· en· W4414413005 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Junko Shirako, Tomoko Sumiyoshi, Hiroko Susaka, M. Ishida

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicSocial and Demographic Issues in Germany
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsWorkloadQualitative researchWelfareResidential careFocus groupPerceptionQualitative property

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explores the unique challenges of the Japanese child welfare system with a specific focus on residential foster care facilities. In Japan, the foster care system has yet to be fully developed, resulting in many children with no parental care being placed in institutional settings. This study examines how staff at residential foster care facilities perceive and respond to children’s sexual development, with the goal of identifying the need for training and support in managing related issues. Ten staff members from five children’s welfare facilities participated in semi-structured interviews, which were qualitatively analyzed to identify themes in staff perceptions and responses to children's sexual development. The results revealed four themes of staff perception: (1) psychological distance from other people, (2) difficulty associated with responding to precocious sexual development, (3) importance of forming attachments, and (4) insufficient sexual education. The study revealed that despite staff awareness of sexual issues among children, they struggled to respond effectively, often relying on trial-and-error approaches to sex education. Furthermore, the lack of specialized sex education programs placed a significant burden on staff. To address this gap, developing targeted programs and providing expert support would help alleviate staff workload and better support children's 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.445 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicSocial and Demographic Issues in GermanyFrench-language works237,207