Facilitators and Barriers in Recruiting and Retaining Foster Parents in Prince Edward Island
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines particular facilitators and barriers in recruiting and retaining foster parents\nin Prince Edward Island (PEI). A review of the extant literature indicated that Self-Determination Theory provided a sound theoretical framework for understanding foster parenting; therefore,\nthis research focused on exploring tenets of this theory. Namely, the psychological need\nsatisfaction levels (autonomy, competence, and relatedness) of foster parents were closely\nexamined. The study also explored foster parents’ likelihood to encourage other families to\nfoster, satisfaction in practical aspects of fostering, and intentions to continue fostering. A\nsample of 33 Regular foster parents in PEI completed either an online or paper questionnaire that\ncollected quantitative and qualitative data. Analyses discovered that PEI foster parents’\nautonomy was the least satisfied, followed by relatedness, and finally, competence was the most\nsatisfied. Overall, PEI foster parents are generally satisfied, likely to encourage other families to\nfoster, and likely to continue fostering for several years, but there are areas in need of\nimprovement within the foster care system, including support for autonomy, relationships\nbetween workers and foster parents, and financial resources.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".