De-spiriting aboriginal children: aboriginal children during the 1960s and 1970s child wefare era
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was designed to examine and evaluate historical Aboriginal child welfare policies and practices in Canada during the 1960s and 1970s. The child welfare policies and practices were critiqued by incorporating an Aboriginal, Anti-Racist, Ethnographical and Critical Auto-biographical approach and methodology. These theoretical and methodological lens support a wholistic paradigm thus, lending itself to use my own life experiences and testimony as a case example. Key areas related to child welfare were examined through utilizing medical, educational, social services, personal and collective perspectives and voices. Each institutional and personal construction addresses issues related to key questions including asking: How can we understand the workings of Aboriginal child welfare policies, specifically the Adopt Indian Metis Policy of the 1960s? How have Aboriginal children in the child welfare system been historically constructed by various institutional sources, and what kind of disjunctures took place between these constructions and a child's experiences? How can we begin to assess the impacts for Aboriginal children, and how their needs were met within these constructions? These questions have important implications for social work theory; practice and group work for the cohort that grew up in the 1960s and 1970s and more broadly, children in care. Further, it is believed that this research will have positive implications for Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal social workers and that the topic of Aboriginal Child Welfare is of significant importance to the social work field and will impact our policy, research, training and practice issues and Vision in urban and rural communities. Importantly, it is believed that this thesis will act as a catalyst for conducting a study that would examine a particular case in relation to the effects of the above mentioned Aboriginal child welfare policies and practices. The potential benefits of this qualitative study on historical Aboriginal Child welfare are examined. It is believed that this qualitative study and methodology would be relevant and welcomed in other social work contexts.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".