Varken ledare eller expert – Om föräldrautbildningen COPE:s kursledare och deras funktion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social work in groups is a well-known method to many social workers. A certain type of this method is parenting education programs. One of these programs is COPE – The Community Parenting Education Program. COPE is to be found in a lot of municipalities in Sweden and also abroad, being created and established in Canada. It allows for parents to seek and receive help from educated “COPE-facilitators”. The programs courses include “setting limits”, understanding of children’s emotions and growth and also educational questions. The aim of this study was to look at the parenting program from a professional angle and look into the work of the facilitator. Which part do professional facilitators play in COPE parenting education? What is the idea around being “professional” according to the COPE co-workers? This study has been carried out with a social constructionist perspective. The study was based on a qualitative research method, by interviewing seven facilitators from the COPE parenting program. My study was based on the Swedish version of COPE with the inclusion of one international interview with the intent to add yet another professional angle. The study showed that professional facilitators do not take the position of being a leader. Furthermore, they did not see themselves as professionals or experts in child upbringing. They presented themselves, and the course itself, to be a platform for parents to meet and discuss common known problematic situations one can be in with your child. The personnel’s different background and experience allowed for them to guide the parent’s throughout the course, with the help of different educational material.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 teacher head, 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".