Beyond Control: Staff Perceptions of Accountability for Children and Youth in Residential Group Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the perceptions of residential staff teams regarding the concept of accountability for children and youth living in group care situations. Using a qualitative research approach, the authors held focus groups with residential staff teams in children's mental health and private group care facilities and then interviewed the supervisors separately in an effort to explore how these teams conceive of their responsibility to teach children and youth about accountability, as well as in order to determine the specific tools used and approaches taken for this purpose. The authors found that a strong reliance on control-based approaches persists and that, furthermore, very little conceptual or theoretical thinking informs team discussions or approaches to holding children and youth accountable for their actions. It is argued here that there is an urgent need to seriously engage with residential care providers about the lived experiences of children and youth under conditions. The use of control and vigilance around the enforcement of program expectations are rarely focused on the individual needs of the clients and typically reflect the intuition or “common sense” of residential staff teams instead.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".