Best interests according to whom? How Anishinaabe people impacted by the Manitoba child welfare system define the best interests of the child principle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research asked: “how do Anishinaabe people impacted by Manitoba child welfare systems define the best interests of the child principle.” Drawing from an anti-colonial lens and the Breath of Life Theory (Blackstock, 2009; 2011; 2019), and utilizing a conversational methodology (Kovach, 2009; 2019; 2021), eleven self-identified Anishinaabe people were interviewed. Participants ranged in age from 20-63 and included former youth in care, parents, grandparents, and knowledge keepers impacted by child welfare in Manitoba. Analysis was conducted utilizing reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Braun, et al., 2019). Results indicated that the best interests of Anishinaabe children must consider inawendawin (relationship), community, culture, aki (land), gikendaasowin (knowledge, building knowledge), hope and healing. Furthermore, the best interests of Anishinaabe children are inherently connected to their family and community. This research synthesizes the findings into a visual representation and calls for a complete move away from the child and family services system, including challenging the language of child welfare and stepping away from the current models of foster care as part of upholding an Anishinaabe system of caring for family and community. For social work, the research calls for critical learning and reflection in education and practice, and for social workers unwilling to do the work to understand Indigenous worldviews to step away from working with Indigenous people. For settler-colonial governments, the research calls for greater integration of departments, acknowledging that First Nation sovereignty extends beyond child welfare and that the best interest of Anishinaabe children is connected to other departments, such as land.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".