Reclaiming Childhood- Indigenous Child Welfare, Bill C-92, and Canada’s Shadows of Colonialism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis explores the evolution of Canadian child welfare policies through a historical lens, focusing on the impact of colonial legacies on Indigenous communities. By analyzing the key parameters of education, healthcare, child labour, and child protection across different historical periods, the study reveals how universalist narratives rooted in Eurocentric norms have systematically marginalised Indigenous practices and perpetuated structural inequalities. The implementation of Bill C-92, aimed at promoting Indigenous self-governance in child welfare, is critically examined within this context. Despite its intentions to create a more culturally relevant and equitable framework, Bill C-92 struggles to overcome the deeply rooted colonial ideologies and systemic biases that have long shaped Canadian child welfare policies. Through a social constructivist and historical institutionalist approach, this research highlights the persistent challenges of reconciling universalist child welfare standards with the cultural specificity required to meet the needs of Indigenous communities. The thesis concludes by calling for a fundamental shift in policy design that respects Indigenous self-determination and incorporates culturally sensitive practices. It also suggests areas for future research, emphasising the need to explore Indigenous-led initiatives further and develop frameworks that support meaningful reconciliation. This study contributes to the broader discourse on decolonization and the need for systemic change in public policy to achieve equity for Indigenous peoples in Canada.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".