The role of power and control in children's lives: an ecological analysis of pathways toward wellness, resilience and problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The literature on powerlessness, empowerment and control tends to be adult‐centric and psycho‐centric. It is adult‐centric in that most studies deal with the experience of powerlessness in adults or interpret children's realities from an adult point of view. At the same time, the literature is quite psycho‐centric in that it focuses on the emotional and cognitive dimensions of powerlessness, to the relative neglect of social and political power. The purpose of this article is to redress these biases and elucidate the role of power and control in pathways toward health, resilience and problems in children's lives. We define wellness as a satisfactory state of affairs, brought about by the acquisition and development of material and psychological resources, participation and self‐determination, competence and self‐efficacy. Power and control are defined as opportunities afforded by social, community, and family environments to develop these three dimensions of health and wellness. We highlight basic research which describes pathways toward wellness, resilience, and problems in life, as well as applied research on promising interventions to improve children's health and wellness. This literature is interpreted in terms of our conceptual framework that links power/control and wellness through the three dimensions that we have proposed. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".