Maori Perspectives on Collaboration and Colonisation in Contemporary Aotearoa/New Zealand Child and Family Welfare Policies and Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Colonization involves the appropriation and disfigurement of resources, the most valuable of these being people. In Aotearoa/New Zealand, indigenous Maori experiences of colonization parallel those of indigenous peoples around the world. The British modelled child welfare system in particular has been held responsible for the fragmentation of Maori families/whanau and communities. In 1989, new legislation was heralded as a radical departure from the previous legalistic, coercive and punitive system. The ‘Children, Young Person’s and their Families Act’ (CYP&F, 1989) signalled a partnership approach whereby Western welfare authorities and indigenous Maori communities would collaborate to protect ‘the best interests of the child’. However, the radical changes promised have not always been apparent in the implementation of the Act and associated policies and procedures. Maori workers and analysts are now questioning whether the problems experienced lie solely within practitioners unwilling to relinquish the power that they have traditionally wielded over Maori communities in the name of child protection, or whether the partnerships approach in the legislation itself is faulty. The CYP&F Act (1989) incorporates Maori terms and refers to Maori systems and philosophy, however the Act itself is now seen by many Maori as a continuation of colonial traditions of oppression and family/whanau devastation. There are suspicions that the ‘new approach’ is part of a wider movement to ‘culturally sensitize’ Child and Family Welfare policies and practices in order to make them more palatable to Maori, to more efficiently access Maori families/whanau and communities, and thus to promote an ongoing child protection crusade, within which families/whanau and communities are frequently viewed as the opposition. Contemporary Maori experiences give rise to serious questions about the nature of ongoing colonization and to tensions around attempts to bring together two very different philosophies and approaches to child and family well-being.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".