MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077356778 · doi:10.3390/socsci3040672

The Productive Uses of Conflict in Child Protection

2014· article· en· W2077356778 on OpenAlexaff
Doug Magnuson

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Sciences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdeologyPower (physics)Public relationsSocial psychologyBusinessChild protectionPsychologyPolitical scienceLaw and economicsSociologyLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Some child protection cases exemplify a certain kind of cooperative interdependence, a consequence of the ways in which practitioners and clients are entangled. Client and practitioner are “stuck” with each other and need each other to succeed. There is also an intrinsic power imbalance that technique, ideology, and skill cannot hide and that has risks for the well-being and success of the practitioner-client relationship. There is also a risk to the practitioner of biases caused by successful influence. “Productive conflict,” defined as conflict under conditions of cooperative interdependence, may compensate for these challenges and lead to “integrative solutions.” In these cases the conflict itself is a kind of collaboration.

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)0.000
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 score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial SciencesSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207