MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7128327991

An Analysis of Reasons for Placing Children in Establishments Intended for the Execution of Constitutional and Protective Care

2009· dissertation· cs· W7128327991 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lucie Šustová

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Repository (National Repository of Grey Literature) · 2009
Typedissertation
Languagecs
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Dysfunctional familyWork (physics)Child protectionAccountabilityInstitutional analysisData collection
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

My Diploma work is called “Reasons for Children´s Placement in Institutional and Correctional Facilities“. The aim of the work was to find out and analyse why children were transferred into the facilities of institutional and correctional education and to map all legal measures which could procede. The theoretical part deals with socio-pathological phenomena in families, legal framework of placing children in special-care facilities, children´s social and legal security, different school institutions and their inmates´ rights and duties as well as psychological impact of institutional care on children´s development. In the practical part a method of quantitative sociological research, a secondary data analysis, has been used. The research database consisted of all children who were placed in any special-care facility as a result of court-ordered institutional and correctional education, preliminary measures or parent agreed-to placement in an diagnostic institute. Three hypotheses based on the professional literature findings were defined. 1. The main reason why children are placed in institutional facilities is a dysfunctional family where the children´s education is threatened by some sociopathological phenomena. 2. Children are mostly placed in the institutional facilities aged 12 - 15. 3. The fact schools do not solve the behavioural problems in children in the long term affects negatively more than one quarter of institutionalised children. The first hypothesis was not confirmed while the other two were.

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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Repository (National Repository of Grey Literature)→Same topicCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis→French-language works237,207→