Caregivers, Young People with Complex Needs, and Multiple Service Providers: A Study of Triangulated Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Five patterns of service provider-caregiver-adolescent interaction are discussed using qualitative interviews and file review data from 44 youth with complex needs who were clients of more than one psychosocial service (child welfare, mental health, addictions, juvenile justice, and special education). Findings show that young people and their families become triangulated with service providers, either engaging with, or resisting, interventions. For young people with complex needs involved with multiple service providers, both positive and negative patterns of interaction contribute to the complexity of caregiver-child interactions. According to young people themselves, the most functional of these patterns, empowerment, was experienced as protective when it helped them to meet their personal needs and enhance communication. In contrast, four problematic patterns produced triangulations described as conflictual or unsupportive. The implications of these patterns for family therapy are discussed with an emphasis on the therapist as both clinician and advocate for better services from multiple providers.
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 | 0.015 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".