Strengthening connections to culture and cultural identity of Indigenous children and youth in care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The number of Indigenous children and youth that continue to be removed from family and community and placed in the Canadian foster care system continues to surpass the number of Caucasian children and youth in foster care. The high number of Indigenous children and youth currently placed in care continues to surpass even that of the 60’s scoop. Indigenous children placed in our foster care systems continue to experience a high number of placement moves and disruptions during their time in care. There continues to be minimal Canadian or British Columbian (BC) research to determine what is required for the stabilization of our Indigenous children and youth placed within [foster] care (CIC). This study was conducted in response to this knowledge gap and is based on qualitative interviews with two long-term foster parents, one who was Indigenous and one who was not, and two Indigenous adults who were raised in foster care. The long-term foster parents have twenty-eight years of combined experience caring for Indigenous children and youth placed in BC’s foster care system. \n\nOf the four participants interviewed for this research study, all indicated the importance of collaborative, working relationships between the foster parent, CIC, social worker, and the child welfare agency as critical factors for creating placement stability, belonging, cultural identity and connections to home community for Indigenous children and youth in foster care. The foster parents’ willingness to engage with the CIC’s family, and home community, while also promoting and encouraging the CIC’s ongoing involvement in daily cultural practices and traditions emerged as factors for the development of trusting, strength-based, caring, long-term relationships between CIC and foster parent. Additionally, collaborative, and inclusive, cooperative relationships and practices between child welfare agencies and foster parents was found to be an intrinsic factor contributing to the development of resiliency in our CIC’s for the development and strengthening of cultural identity and belonging.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".