MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416640329 · doi:10.1016/j.chipro.2025.100266

Measuring social and community services for children, youth, and families in contact with the child welfare system: A scoping review

2025· article· en· W4416640329 on OpenAlexaff
Lindsay Crompton, Nicholas Chu, Nathaniel J. Pollock, John Fluke, Lil Tonmyr

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Protection and Practice · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioPublic Health Agency of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial WelfareWelfareService (business)Social workService providerCommunity healthInclusion (mineral)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Administrative data can be used to systematically analyze and evaluate social and community services for families in contact with the child welfare system. These services aim to address social and economic disadvantages and prevent the recurrence of child maltreatment. The objectives were to: map the types of social and community services captured in child welfare administrative and linked data sources; describe population-based indicators that measure services; and identify data sources used to create service indicators. Children, youth, and/or families in contact with the child welfare system. A scoping review was conducted using MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Scopus, and a grey literature search (2000 to 2023). The outcome of interest was social and community service-related indicators captured within or linked to child welfare administrative data. Twenty-nine articles met inclusion criteria. Types of services varied widely (e.g., parenting, financial, education). For service indicators, we identified 11 process indicator themes and 11 outcome indicator themes. Information on services were not typically included directly in child welfare administrative data. Most studies combined child welfare administrative data with service data using linkage methodology, with a median of two data sources per study. This review systematically classified social and community service categories, identified process and outcome service indicators, and examined data sources used to create service indicators. Findings can be used by child welfare agencies, other service providers, and public health organizations to improve child welfare data infrastructure and inform policy and practice decision-making. • Social and community services data are integral to child welfare prevention efforts • Identified service categories / indicators measuring social and community services • Service indicators utilized both child welfare administrative data and linked data • Service indicators inform child welfare prevention policy and programs

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.100
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.100
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.006
Bibliometrics0.0390.042
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 venueChild Protection and PracticeSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207