MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7132895035

Disproportionality and Disparity of Black Children in the Child Welfare System of Ontario, Canada

2020· dissertation· W7132895035 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kofi Antwi-Boasiako

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2020
Typedissertation
Language
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWelfareNeglectWelfare systemRacismChild disciplineChild abuseWhite (mutation)Domestic violencePoison control
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While the disproportionate and disparate representation of Black children in the child welfare system has been the subject of over forty years of research in the United States, such research is now emerging in Canada. This three-paper dissertation examines disproportionality and disparity of Black children in the child welfare system of Ontario, Canada. The first paper uses data from the first five cycles of the Ontario Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect (OIS) to compare incidence data on Black and White families investigated by Ontario’s child welfare system over a twenty (20) year period. The results show that the incidence of investigations involving White families almost doubled between 1998 and 2003. For Black families, the incidence increased almost fourfold during the same period. The second paper uses the same OIS data to examine the impact of decision-making tools on Black families and how they might have contributed to their overrepresentation in the child welfare system. The paper seeks to explore potential drivers of the increase and their impact on Black families. This paper suggests that reports of physical abuse and exposure to intimate partner violence are among the many explanations for the overrepresentation of Black children in Ontario’s child welfare system. The third paper uses focus groups to explore the findings from the first two papers in order to interpret them through the perspectives of community service providers and child welfare workers. This paper generates a number of themes around racism and bias; lack of cultural sensitivity; lack of workforce diversity/training; lack of culturally appropriate resources; assessment tools; duty to report; fear of liability; lack of collaboration between child welfare workers and Black families; and poverty. This dissertation concludes with a summary of key findings, limitations and implications for theory, policy and practice.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.438

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0090.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.270 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicChild Abuse and Trauma→French-language works237,207→