Collaborate with caution: protecting children, helping mothers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent recognition of the effects of domestic violence on children has given rise to calls for collaborative interventions between the arenas of child protection and domestic violence. Amidst this flurry of activity, little serious consideration has been given to the subjectivity of mothers who are simultaneously involved with child protection agencies and battered women’s shelters. Without explicit engagement of mothers as subjects in their own right, collaboration has the potential to exacerbate their already trying circumstances. Our paper reviews the child protection context in which women as mothers are simultaneously relegated to the periphery of concern and called upon to act as ‘mother protectors’ in response to children at risk. We then explore mothering in the context of domestic violence and their relative invisibility in shelter settings. We conclude with a call to render women’s experiences of domestic violence and mothering both visible and supported in these collaborative efforts.
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 | 0.020 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".