搜索结果：Journal of public child welfare

The U.S. Child Welfare System (CWS) is increasingly seeking to emulate business models of the private sector centered in efficiency, cost reduction, and innovation through the adoption of algorithms. These data-driven systems purportedly improve decision-making, however, the public sector poses its own set of challenges with respect to the technical, theoretical, cultural, and societal implications of algorithmic decision-making. To fill these gaps, my dissertation comprises four studies that examine: 1) how caseworkers interact with algorithms in their day-to-day discretionary work, 2) the impact of algorithmic decision-making on the nature of practice, organization, and street-level decision-making, 3) how casenotes can help unpack patterns of invisible labor and contextualize decision-making processes, and 4) how casenotes can help uncover deeper systemic constraints and risk factors that are hard to quantify but directly impact families and street-level decision-making. My goal for this research is to investigate systemic disparities and design and develop algorithmic systems that are centered in the theory of practice and improve the quality of human discretionary work. These

We compare the network of aggregated journal-journal citation relations provided by the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) 2012 of the Science and Social Science Citation Indexes (SCI and SSCI) with similar data based on Scopus 2012. First, global maps were developed for the two sets separately; sets of documents can then be compared using overlays to both maps. Using fuzzy-string matching and ISSN numbers, we were able to match 10,524 journal names between the two sets; that is, 96.4% of the 10,936 journals contained in JCR or 51.2% of the 20,554 journals covered by Scopus. Network analysis was then pursued on the set of journals shared between the two databases and the two sets of unique journals. Citations among the shared journals are more comprehensively covered in JCR than Scopus, so the network in JCR is denser and more connected than in Scopus. The ranking of shared journals in terms of indegree (that is, numbers of citing journals) or total citations is similar in both databases overall (Spearman's \r{ho} > 0.97), but some individual journals rank very differently. Journals that are unique to Scopus seem to be less important--they are citing shared journals rather than bein

Rankings of scholarly journals based on citation data are often met with skepticism by the scientific community. Part of the skepticism is due to disparity between the common perception of journals' prestige and their ranking based on citation counts. A more serious concern is the inappropriate use of journal rankings to evaluate the scientific influence of authors. This paper focuses on analysis of the table of cross-citations among a selection of Statistics journals. Data are collected from the Web of Science database published by Thomson Reuters. Our results suggest that modelling the exchange of citations between journals is useful to highlight the most prestigious journals, but also that journal citation data are characterized by considerable heterogeneity, which needs to be properly summarized. Inferential conclusions require care in order to avoid potential over-interpretation of insignificant differences between journal ratings. Comparison with published ratings of institutions from the UK's Research Assessment Exercise shows strong correlation at aggregate level between assessed research quality and journal citation `export scores' within the discipline of Statistics.

Background: Recent studies have demonstrated that large language models (LLMs) can perform binary classification tasks on child welfare narratives, detecting the presence or absence of constructs such as substance-related problems, domestic violence, and firearms involvement. Whether smaller, locally deployable models can move beyond binary detection to classify specific substance types from these narratives remains untested. Objective: To validate a locally hosted LLM classifier for identifying specific substance types aligned with DSM-5 categories in child welfare investigation narratives. Methods: A locally hosted 20-billion-parameter LLM classified child maltreatment investigation narratives from a Midwestern U.S. state. Records previously identified as containing substance-related problems were passed to a second classification stage targeting seven DSM-5 substance categories. Expert human review of 900 stratified cases assessed classification precision, recall, and inter-method reliability (Cohen's kappa). Test-retest stability was evaluated using approximately 15,000 independently classified records. Results: Five substance categories achieved almost perfect inter-method agr

Successful achievement of public policies requires satisfaction of conditions affecting political feasibility for policy adoption and maintenance as well as economic viability of the desired activity or enterprise. This paper discusses the difficulties of satisfying these joint constraints given the legacy of the common law doctrines of "just price" and "businesses affected with a public interest." In this regard, it is helpful to view traditional public utility regulation as a form of welfare state regulation, as it suffers from similar political problems from policy retrenchment. The retrenchment problems are examined in the context of the electricity crisis in California as well as the passage and implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. As expected, retrenchment from low residential retail rates - the most universalistic benefit for customers - faces the greatest political resistance. The societal trade-offs between monopoly and competition must be reexamined in light of the greater instability and political difficulties under a deregulatory regime.

Algorithms have permeated throughout civil government and society, where they are being used to make high-stakes decisions about human lives. In this paper, we first develop a cohesive framework of algorithmic decision-making adapted for the public sector (ADMAPS) that reflects the complex socio-technical interactions between \textit{human discretion}, \textit{bureaucratic processes}, and \textit{algorithmic decision-making} by synthesizing disparate bodies of work in the fields of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), Science and Technology Studies (STS), and Public Administration (PA). We then applied the ADMAPS framework to conduct a qualitative analysis of an in-depth, eight-month ethnographic case study of the algorithms in daily use within a child-welfare agency that serves approximately 900 families and 1300 children in the mid-western United States. Overall, we found there is a need to focus on strength-based algorithmic outcomes centered in social ecological frameworks. In addition, algorithmic systems need to support existing bureaucratic processes and augment human discretion, rather than replace it. Finally, collective buy-in in algorithmic systems requires trust in the tar

Human services systems make key decisions that impact individuals in the society. The U.S. child welfare system makes such decisions, from screening-in hotline reports of suspected abuse or neglect for child protective investigations, placing children in foster care, to returning children to permanent home settings. These complex and impactful decisions on children's lives rely on the judgment of child welfare decisionmakers. Child welfare agencies have been exploring ways to support these decisions with empirical, data-informed methods that include machine learning (ML). This paper describes a conceptual framework for ML to support child welfare decisions. The ML framework guides how child welfare agencies might conceptualize a target problem that ML can solve; vet available administrative data for building ML; formulate and develop ML specifications that mirror relevant populations and interventions the agencies are undertaking; deploy, evaluate, and monitor ML as child welfare context, policy, and practice change over time. Ethical considerations, stakeholder engagement, and avoidance of common pitfalls underpin the framework's impact and success. From abstract to concrete, we d

The ability to predict the long-term impact of a scientific article soon after its publication is of great value towards accurate assessment of research performance. In this work we test the hypothesis that good predictions of long-term citation counts can be obtained through a combination of a publication's early citations and the impact factor of the hosting journal. The test is performed on a corpus of 123,128 WoS publications authored by Italian scientists, using linear regression models. The average accuracy of the prediction is good for citation time windows above two years, decreases for lowly-cited publications, and varies across disciplines. As expected, the role of the impact factor in the combination becomes negligible after only two years from publication.

Publication patterns of 79 forest scientists awarded major international forestry prizes during 1990-2010 were compared with the journal classification and ranking promoted as part of the 'Excellence in Research for Australia' (ERA) by the Australian Research Council. The data revealed that these scientists exhibited an elite publication performance during the decade before and two decades following their first major award. An analysis of their 1703 articles in 431 journals revealed substantial differences between the journal choices of these elite scientists and the ERA classification and ranking of journals. Implications from these findings are that additional cross-classifications should be added for many journals, and there should be an adjustment to the ranking of several journals relevant to the ERA Field of Research classified as 0705 Forestry Sciences.

The algorithmic fairness of predictive analytic tools in the public sector has increasingly become a topic of rigorous exploration. While instruments pertaining to criminal recidivism and academic admissions, for example, have garnered much attention, the predictive instruments of Child Welfare jurisdictions have received considerably less attention. This is in part because comparatively few such instruments exist and because even fewer have been scrutinized through the lens of algorithmic fairness. In this work, we seek to address both of these gaps. To this end, a novel classification algorithm for predicting reunification success within Oregon Child Welfare is presented, including all of the relevant details associated with building such an instrument. The purpose of this tool is to maximize the number of stable reunifications and identify potentially unstable reunifications which may require additional resources and scrutiny. Additionally, because the algorithmic fairness of the resulting tool, if left unaltered, is unquestionably lacking, the utilized procedure for mitigating such unfairness is presented, along with the rationale behind each difficult and unavoidable choice. T

Optimal public policy requires a social welfare function defined over individual utilities. While there is substantial research on income-based social welfare functions, no published study has directly elicited public preferences over utility when measured by subjective wellbeing. Using a novel survey instrument with a representative UK sample (N=2,068), we estimate the public's social welfare function for life satisfaction. We find significant aversion to wellbeing inequality, with a median isoelastic parameter $α$=0.48. This implies a social welfare function approximately equal to the sum of square roots of individual utilities. The median respondent values improving the wellbeing of the least satisfied by one unit roughly twice as much as improving the most satisfied by one unit. Our findings provide ethically grounded distributional weights for wellbeing policy evaluation and cost-benefit analysis.

We introduce a novel methodology for mapping academic institutions based on their journal publication profiles. We believe that journals in which researchers from academic institutions publish their works can be considered as useful identifiers for representing the relationships between these institutions and establishing comparisons. However, when academic journals are used for research output representation, distinctions must be introduced between them, based on their value as institution descriptors. This leads us to the use of journal weights attached to the institution identifiers. Since a journal in which researchers from a large proportion of institutions published their papers may be a bad indicator of similarity between two academic institutions, it seems reasonable to weight it in accordance with how frequently researchers from different institutions published their papers in this journal. Cluster analysis can then be applied to group the academic institutions, and dendrograms can be provided to illustrate groups of institutions following agglomerative hierarchical clustering. In order to test this methodology, we use a sample of Spanish universities as a case study. We f

Conference publications in computer science (CS) have attracted scholarly attention due to their unique status as a main research outlet unlike other science fields where journals are dominantly used for communicating research findings. One frequent research question has been how different conference and journal publications are, considering a paper as a unit of analysis. This study takes an author-based approach to analyze publishing patterns of 517,763 scholars who have ever published both in CS conferences and journals for the last 57 years, as recorded in DBLP. The analysis shows that the majority of CS scholars tend to make their scholarly debut, publish more papers, and collaborate with more coauthors in conferences than in journals. Importantly, conference papers seem to serve as a distinct channel of scholarly communication, not a mere preceding step to journal publications: coauthors and title words of authors across conferences and journals tend not to overlap much. This study corroborates findings of previous studies on this topic from a distinctive perspective and suggests that conference authorship in CS calls for more special attention from scholars and administrators

Using the Scopus dataset (1996-2007) a grand matrix of aggregated journal-journal citations was constructed. This matrix can be compared in terms of the network structures with the matrix contained in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) of the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI). Since the Scopus database contains a larger number of journals and covers also the humanities, one would expect richer maps. However, the matrix is in this case sparser than in the case of the ISI data. This is due to (i) the larger number of journals covered by Scopus and (ii) the historical record of citations older than ten years contained in the ISI database. When the data is highly structured, as in the case of large journals, the maps are comparable, although one may have to vary a threshold (because of the differences in densities). In the case of interdisciplinary journals and journals in the social sciences and humanities, the new database does not add a lot to what is possible with the ISI databases.

Child welfare (CW) agencies use risk assessment tools as a means to achieve evidence-based, consistent, and unbiased decision-making. These risk assessments act as data collection mechanisms and have further evolved into algorithmic systems in recent years. Moreover, several of these algorithms have reinforced biased theoretical constructs and predictors because of the easy availability of structured assessment data. In this study, we critically examine the Washington Assessment of Risk Model (WARM), a prominent risk assessment tool that has been adopted by over 30 states in the United States and has been repurposed into more complex algorithms. We compared WARM against the narrative coding of casenotes written by caseworkers who used WARM. We found significant discrepancies between the casenotes and WARM data where WARM scores did not not mirror caseworkers' notes about family risk. We provide the SIGCHI community with some initial findings from the quantitative de-construction of a child-welfare algorithm.

Ageing of publications, percentage of self-citations, and impact vary from journal to journal within fields of science. The assumption that citation and publication practices are homogenous within specialties and fields of science is invalid. Furthermore, the delineation of fields and among specialties is fuzzy. Institutional units of analysis and persons may move between fields or span different specialties. The match between the citation index and institutional profiles varies among institutional units and nations. The respective matches may heavily affect the representation of the units. Non-ISI journals are increasingly cornered into "transdisciplinary" Mode-2 functions with the exception of specialist journals publishing in languages other than English. An "externally cited impact factor" can be calculated for these journals. The citation impact of non-ISI journals will be demonstrated using Science and Public Policy as the example.

This is an extended analysis of our paper "How Child Welfare Workers Reduce Racial Disparities in Algorithmic Decisions," which looks at racial disparities in the Allegheny Family Screening Tool, an algorithm used to help child welfare workers decide which families the Allegheny County child welfare agency (CYF) should investigate. On April 27, 2022, Allegheny County CYF sent us an updated dataset and pre-processing steps. In this extended analysis of our paper, we show the results from re-running all quantitative analyses in our paper with this new data and pre-processing. We find that our main findings in our paper were robust to changes in data and pre-processing. Particularly, the Allegheny Family Screening Tool on its own would have made more racially disparate decisions than workers, and workers used the tool to decrease those algorithmic disparities. Some minor results changed, including a slight increase in the screen-in rate from before to after the implementation of the AFST reported our paper.

Caseworkers are trained to write detailed narratives about families in Child-Welfare (CW) which informs collaborative high-stakes decision-making. Unlike other administrative data, these narratives offer a more credible source of information with respect to workers' interactions with families as well as underscore the role of systemic factors in decision-making. SIGCHI researchers have emphasized the need to understand human discretion at the street-level to be able to design human-centered algorithms for the public sector. In this study, we conducted computational text analysis of casenotes at a child-welfare agency in the midwestern United States and highlight patterns of invisible street-level discretionary work and latent power structures that have direct implications for algorithm design. Casenotes offer a unique lens for policymakers and CW leadership towards understanding the experiences of on-the-ground caseworkers. As a result of this study, we highlight how street-level discretionary work needs to be supported by sociotechnical systems developed through worker-centered design. This study offers the first computational inspection of casenotes and introduces them to the SIG

This paper aims to initiate new conversations about the use of physiological indicators when assessing the welfare of dogs. There are significant concerns about construct validity - whether the measures used accurately reflect welfare. The goal is to provide recommendations for future inquiry and encourage debate. We acknowledge that the scientific understanding of animal welfare has evolved and bring attention to the shortcomings of commonly used biomarkers like cortisol. These indicators are frequently used in isolation and with limited salient dog descriptors, so fail to reflect the canine experience adequately. Using a systems approach, we explore various physiological systems and alternative indicators, such as heart rate variability and oxidative stress, to address this limitation. It is essential to consider factors like age, body weight, breed, and sex when interpreting these biomarkers correctly, and researchers should report on these in their studies. This discussion identifies possible indicators for both positive and negative experiences. In conclusion, we advocate for a practical, evidence-based approach to assessing indicators of canine welfare, including non-invasive