MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7011717356

New Policy Directives for the Host Family Program in Ontario

2017· article· en· W7011717356 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiomedical and Chemical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationSocial policyOrder (exchange)Christian ministryNeglectPublic policy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Host Family Program is a provincially-funded residential accommodation program that offers adults with developmental disabilities the chance to live with people who can provide care, support and supervision in a family setting. Individuals with developmental disabilities tend to be at a greater risk for neglect and abuse, so it is imperative that legislation be in place to prevent this from happening. The Host Family Program implemented new policy requirements in April of 2016 in order to increase the safety and security of the people who are in the care of host families. Following a sentinel event that occurred in 2012 in Ancaster, Ontario, a coroner's inquest was conducted and subsequent jury recommendations were made. From these the Ministry of Community and Social Services developed the new policy directives. While the Host Family Program provides housing accommodations to approximately 1,500 people, there are many other vulnerable individuals in several other residential programs and on waiting lists. It is worrisome that there is currently no distinct and separate policy in place to protect these individuals from harm. The policy directives for the Host Family Program are a step in the right direction by government, but further policy development must be achieved in order to prevent future tragedies. Le programme des services de relève en famille hôte est un programme de logement financé par la province qui permet aux adultes ayant une déficience intellectuelle de vivre avec des personnes qui peuvent offrir des soins, un soutien et une supervision dans un cadre familial. En général, les personnes ayant une déficience intellectuelle courent un plus grand risque d'être négligées et maltraitées ; il est donc impératif que des lois soient mises en place pour empêcher que cela se produise. Le programme des services de relève en famille hôte a mis en ~oeuvre de nouvelles exigences en avril 2016 afin d'accroître la sûreté et la sécurité des personnes qui vivent dans une famille hôte. Suite à un événement fatal qui a eu lieu à Ancaster, en Ontario, en 2012, une enquête du coroner a été menée et le jury a prescrit plusieurs recommandations. Le ministère des Services sociaux et communautaires a consulté ces recommandations pour développer les nouvelles directives. Même si le programme des services de relève en famille hôte accueille 1.500 personnes, beaucoup de personnes vulnérables relèvent d'autres programmes de logements ou sur des listes d'attente, et il est donc inquiétant qu'il n'y ait actuellement aucune politique spécifique en place pour les protéger. Les nouvelles exigences publiées par le gouvernement pour le programme des services de relève en famille hôte vont dans le bon sens, mais il faut élaborer plus de politiques pour prévenir d'autres tragédies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.386
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.408
GPT teacher head0.633
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicBiomedical and Chemical ResearchFrench-language works237,207