MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7132930238

A critical analysis of the overrepresentation of First Nations children and families in the Ontario child welfare system and disparities in providing ongoing child welfare services

2018· dissertation· W7132930238 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jennifer Ma

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2018
Typedissertation
Language
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmWelfarePopulationWelfare systemWhite (mutation)LegislationPoison controlPoverty
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

First Nations children are chronically overrepresented in the child welfare system in Canada. This is largely a result of the effect that colonization has on Aboriginal peoples, but also evidence of colonialism being reproduced through current discriminatory legislation and practices. This three-paper dissertation employed a secondary analysis of data to examine the extent of the overrepresentation of First Nations children involved with child welfare in Ontario. Moreover, this study critically examines investigations of reported maltreatment to understand what is driving the overrepresentation of First Nations children. The results show that overrepresentation is a predictable outcome in a system predicated on assimilative objectives. In Ontario, First Nations children represent 2.5% of the child population; they represent 7.4% of child maltreatment-related investigations. For every 1,000 First Nations children in Ontario, 160.3 were involved in investigations compared to 54.4 per 1,000 White children. Overrepresentation was most pronounced for investigations of neglect. Rates of substantiation (3.4 times), ongoing services (4.2 times), child welfare court (5.7 times), and child welfare placement (7.5 times) were higher for the First Nations child population and disparities increased as children moved further into the child welfare system. Caregiver concerns were the main drivers of transfers to ongoing services for both First Nations and White children. For investigations involving White children, after controlling for caregiver concerns, workers were more likely to transfer a case for ongoing services when child psychological harm was present. While the proportion of children identified with psychological harm was similar across both groups, workers placed more weight on a White child experiencing psychological harm. The notion that workers might have different standards for decision-making for First Nations children compared to White children is concerning. Overall, the findings indicate that structural risks have not been addressed, putting First Nations families at risk for child welfare involvement. Structural issues such as chronic poverty and systemic racism are indicative of the legacy of the residential school system and produce the conditions that result in children coming to the attention of child protection services. Overrepresentation will continue unabated if the immense social inequities for First Nations children are not addressed.

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)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.008
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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