La double appartenance familiale de l’enfant placé en famille d’accueil Banque-mixte: un équilibre fragile
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research Framework: Foster-to-adopt families foster children intending to adopt them. Children placed in this type of resource are generally between the ages of 0-2 years and considered at high risk of abandonment, but they are not adoptable at the beginning of placement and most continue to see their birth parents through supervised visits.Objectives: The purpose of this study is to shed light on the challenges that the child's dual family affiliation poses for foster-to-adopt parents during placement. It aims to better understand how foster-to-adopt parents negotiate the child's dual family connection during placement and throughout the adoption process.Methodology: To meet these objectives, 31 semi-structured interviews were conducted with foster-to-adopt parents in three regions of Quebec. Parents were interviewed twice, once within a year of the start of the placement and again 18 months later.Results: The results are based on four main themes: 1) foster-to-adopt parents' perception of the child’s birth parents; 2) fears and apprehensions experienced about the child’s custody; 3) issues of naming and designating parents; and 4) the role of child welfare workers in the contact between the two families.Conclusions: Family affiliation and relationships of children in foster-to-adopt placements are based on a fragile balance that can be explained in part by the distinct and sometimes opposing intentions of the foster-to-adopt parents and birth parents, but also by other factors such as the vulnerability of the birth parents, the profile of the children in care and variability of the child welfare workers’ practices.Contribution: Foster-to-adopt placements remain little studied in Quebec. This study provides a better understanding of various issues underlying this type of placement in terms of family dynamics and relationships.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".