MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039805503 · doi:10.1080/02650530802099791

‘FOR THE SAKE OF THE CHILDREN’: MAKING SENSE OF CHILDREN AND CHILDHOOD IN THE CONTEXT OF CHILD PROTECTION

2008· article· en· W2039805503 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sara Collings, Linda Davies

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Social Work Practice · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChild protectionContext (archaeology)Developmental psychologyEarly childhoodSociologyPsychologyPolitical scienceLawHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ideas of childhood and children are arguably at the very centre of child protection policy, theory and practice, and yet very little attention has been placed on discourses of children and childhood in this field. In this paper we begin to examine how discourses of childhood are reproduced in a child protection context by looking at the talk of practising child protection workers and supervisors in Ontario, Canada. We found that child welfare workers' talk about children suggests that two discourses about children dominate: a discourse of the child as vulnerable and in need of rescue and a discourse of the child as a rights‐bearing individual. We will argue that both these discourses contribute to a symbolic extraction of the child from the family and in this way they function to distance workers from the emotional impact of their practice with parents and children. We will consider the implications of this conceptual extraction of the child from the family and make a case for a more complex understanding of children that reflects the intertwined relationship between parents and children. Lastly, a practice approach to child protection that helps workers to absorb the subjectivities of both children and their parents will be proposed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.763
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations52
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Social Work PracticeSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207