Voice, Agency, and Culture: Examining the Experiences and Perspectives of the Child Protection System for First Nations Peoples Living on Gumbaynggirr Country
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Internationally, Indigenous children are disproportionately represented in child protection systems, reflecting ongoing colonial legacies and systemic inequities in child welfare practices (AIHW, 2024a). Australia is not immune to this phenomenon. This research has provided First Nations peoples living on Gumbaynggirr Country a voice by documenting their experiences and collaborating to create an agenda for change in child protection practices. Having these direct voices makes this study significant as it provides the reader with an opportunity to hear firsthand accounts of experiences and community-led solutions to address this ongoing issue. Thus, the tenets of this research focus are voice, agency, and culture. This research used narrative ethnography with the data being collected using yarning. The data was then analysed using Braun and Clark’s (2021a) technique. This was followed by a participatory approach, working with the collaborative partners to make recommendations for improved practice. The finding revealed issues of racism and the legacy of colonisation, cultural disconnection and parenting differences, and systemic barriers and structural failures, all contributing to the phenomenon of the overrepresentation of First Nations children in out-of-home care. Together with the collaborative partners, recommendations as to how to address these issues have been presented. The benefit of this being a local project is that the researcher is able to work with the Gumbaynggirr community to bring these recommendations and strategies to the people who can make a difference for improved 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 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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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".