Looking under the bonnet: probation officers' practice with child protection cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This research examined 31 Probation Service cases inEngland andWales that required some child protection work. It examined three areas: key characteristics of the case, inter‐agency communication and evidence for a ‘think family’ approach. Key findings were that domestic violence and substance misuse were widespread. The majority of the cases were assessed as low or medium risk of harm, and so after the ‘Transforming Rehabilitation’ restructuring will be supervised by aCommunityRehabilitationCompany, rather than theNationalProbationService. The majority of cases featured effective inter‐agency communication, and were characterized by the ‘think family’ principle. Where this was not achieved, two types of cases stood out. The first was where the probation officer was distracted from offenders' children because of public protection issues. The second was where probation officers made efforts to be included in multi‐agency work, but were shut out.
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 | 0.005 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 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".