MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7036095381

Archives de l’enfance : le projet MIRRA (Mémoire-Identité-Droit aux archives-Accès) [Archives of Childhood: Memory-Identity-Rights in Records-Access (MIRRA) project]

2023· article· en· W7036095381 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUCL Discovery (University College London) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMilitary, Security, and Education Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Meaning (existential)Identification (biology)Filter (signal processing)Work (physics)Population
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UK government figures show that on 31 March 2021, 80,850 children and young people were living in out-of-home care in England. Looked after children’s lives are documented by social workers, foster carers and others, recorded in ‘care files’. Writing from a care leaver’s perspective, the UK Access to Care Records Campaign Group expresses both the importance and the inadequacies of current recordkeeping practices in social care. The Group states, ‘Knowing where we have come from and what has happened in our past is an important part of making sense of ourselves and our lives. For many people who have been in care, however, the collective family memory of events is often not available and there can be gaps in information or confusion about what actually happened’. Children and young people in care often lack family narratives, especially where their experience has been complex, disrupted or traumatic. The UK independent review of children's social care, The Case for Change, found that care experience carries stigma and can weaken identity and that ‘Accessing care files … can play a role in the lifelong memory and identity needs of care-experienced people’. Literature in the fields of social work and archival studies suggests that what is written about children and young people in child social care records has significant impacts on lifelong wellbeing, belonging and sense of self, but they may not be able to answer even basic questions, such as ‘why was I in care?’. Fivush et al suggest this ‘discoherence’ can lead to feelings of anger, frustration and guilt, whereas proactive reminiscence and collaborative memory curation, such as life story work, may enhance self-worth and lifelong positive outcomes. A group of researchers at UCL have been investigating these issues in a UK context, and the experience of care leavers seeking their records is also being explored in many countries, including in Australia and 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0100.007
Open science0.0020.012
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.006

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUCL Discovery (University College London)Same topicMilitary, Security, and Education StudiesFrench-language works237,207