TOWARDS A STATEMENT ON RESIDENTIAL GROUP CARE FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH: A SUGGESTED FRAMEWORK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This contribution to the FICE35 Special Issue was constructed in the form of a draft statement, offering potential elements for organizations that may wish to counter the current movement opposing residential care for children and youth, which is now evident across Europe, North America and, increasingly, around the globe. The framework presented in this article was developed in response to a presentation by representatives of UNICEF at the FICE35 Congress in Split, Croatia, as well as the ongoing international campaign being waged against all forms of residential care for all ages of young people by UNICEF and a number of European and North American organizations, some of which are mentioned at the start of the article. The dimensions of quality for alternative care put forward in this document were also presented and discussed at a plenary panel on Quality in Alternative Care at the FICE35 Congress.
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 | 0.058 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.044 | 0.038 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".