The conceptualization and measurement of need: a key to guiding policy and practice in children's services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Effective services for children must be grounded in the sound conceptualization and measurement of need. The concept of need is often misunderstood because it is used in different ways. Defining need as both a requisite and a goal is desirable. The conceptualization ought to rest on an acceptance that not only are objective and universal needs to attain physical health and autonomy requirements for all human beings, but subjective needs may also sit alongside of universal needs. The ecological/developmental perspective is best suited as a framework for assessing the needs of children. One of its tenets, the importance of understanding the interaction of risk and protective factors, is highly relevant to assessing needs. An assessment of the interaction of risk and protective factors operating in a child's life reveals the requisites and goals necessary for child development. The proposed approaches to the conceptualization and measurement of need when combined will be conducive to better assessment and intervention by social workers with children.
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 | 0.216 | 0.179 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.075 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.033 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".