Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research examines concepts of power and voice as related to the experience of Canadian children in government care. This case study tests a theoretical model in order to illuminate complex power relations. The study posits that theory can be used to make power relations visible, to facilitate understanding of institutions and to make visible the influence these have on the development of children in government care. It seeks to provide insight and to theorize by applying an analytical model for understanding issues of: power, voice, institutional and interpersonal relations within a regulated care system. The young people in this study are extremely articulate and voice their opinions eloquently. They adopt the posture of a knower and participate in the discourse as full citizens. This study confirms that young people do indeed have a voice and that we need to provide opportunities for them to use it. This model represents one method of highlighting multiple meanings which may help us listen to youth and indicate directions in which we can act on what we have heard. The central question was: What do the voices of youth in regulated settings tell us about power and voice as related to language, interpersonal relations, institutional relations and disciplinary practices?Three key findings emerged across the analytical cells: a regulated reality, a disposable life, and a stained identity. The model shows youth's bilingual abilities and their fluency in 'system speak', and more generally at bringing out the bilingual tendencies of oppressed groups. It provides a useful analytical framework through which to examine multiple meanings of text and spoken word. The transcripts of a Canadian youth-led and designed advocacy initiative aimed at sensitizing social workers to the needs of youth in care serves as a case to apply the conceptual model. Four approaches to analysis were utilized in this nested methodological approach: (1) thematic analysis, (2) gender analysis, (3) frame analysis and (4) critical discourse analysis. The analytical approach highlights the multiplicity of meanings in these youths' statements. The use of secondary data, verbatim quotes from youth in care, permitted the application of this conceptual map to the illumination of complex concepts.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".