POWER, CARE AND VULNERABILITY: CONSIDERING USE OF SELF IN CHILD WELFARE WORK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The construct of ‘use of self’ in social work has fallen out of favour due to its focus on the individual and its roots in the original countertransference literature, where issues of power were largely neglected. On the other hand, structural, anti‐oppression and critical social work have tended to disregard the individual worker's personhood except for social identity as they focus on issues of power. This division leaves a gap in our understanding of how personal and social selves interact in social work encounters. Working with children and families in the context of child protection/child welfare can call forth every aspect of a worker's personhood. Where authority and care are closely intertwined in responding to vulnerability, personal, social and professional dimensions cannot be separated. This chapter argues that attention to both dimensions — authority and care — is required in all social work interactions, focusing in particular on the field of child welfare, where an imbalance of power and vulnerability in the social work relationship is underscored and where care can be compromised as a result. Suggestions for fostering critical reflection in the child welfare context are offered.
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 | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.061 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".