RELATED CORRELATES OF CHILD WELFARE AND INCARCERATION AMONG YOUNG ABORIGINAL PEOPLE IN TWO CANADIAN CITIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ii Background: Aboriginal leadership and communities at large are deeply concerned about the disproportionate number of young Aboriginal people entering the child welfare and justice systems in Canada. The current institutionalization of young Aboriginal people must be understood as an extension of Canada’s colonial history, including generations of family disruption and child apprehensions. More knowledge is needed on the impacts of these experiences among young Aboriginal people Purpose: This study compares sociodemographics, trauma experiences and drug and health related vulnerabilities between young Aboriginal people who were taken away from their biological parents and those who were not, and between those who were incarcerated in the last six months and those who were not. Methods: Baseline survey data from on ongoing prospective cohort study of urban Canadian Aboriginal young people was analyzed to determine variables associated with the child welfare system and recent incarceration. To be eligible, participants had to be between the ages of 14 and 30, be living in Vancouver or Prince George, and have used illicit drugs in the past month. Recruitment methods included word of mouth, posters, and street outreach. Surveys were administered between October 2003 and November
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".