Violence against children in families and role of kindergarden in discovering, suspect
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The purpose of this diploma is to analyse how well teachers in kindergartens and their assistants know the legislation that deals with violence against children within families. The goal is also to discover, how well they are aware of child abuse, how well they are able to recognize signs of violence and if they know how to intervene. \nIn theoretical part of diploma I describe possible forms and symptoms of violence against children within families. I present the role of kindergarten when detecting it and the regulations upon which employees can intervene. \nIn empirical part I present the results of survey that was taken in kindergartens in Slovenia among teachers and their assistants. They had to recognize different types of violence and to asses which types in their opinion appear more commonly. They were also asked to estimate how well they know the “Regulatory book on prevention violence against children within family”. They were asked to tell whether they would stand in court, and to state dilemmas when facing cases of violence against children within family. Most of them (95 %) believed that violence manifests in all forms of physical violence, while almost quarter of them considered yelling not to be a form of violence. Also as most commonly appeared type of violence they chose physical violence (68 %). \nAlmost ¾ of them estimated their knowledge of the “Regulatory book on preventing violence against children within families” as good. Yet, more than a third of them (38 %), when stating dilemmas, doubted that a child would speak the truth. Therefore, I believe that they overestimated their knowledge of the regulations. Further on, participants considered that they are not qualified well enough to intervene: Less than a fifth of them thought that they are well qualified for that, and almost half of them as moderately qualified. \n \n
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».