Neo-Liberalism and Responsibilisation in the Discourse of Social Service Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we explore the ways in which child welfare, adolescent mental health and juvenile justice service providers engage in processes of responsibilisation. Drawing on qualitative data gathered from service files of youth receiving concurrent services from child welfare, corrections and mental health services, this article will discuss how a neo-liberal approach to service is reflected in the case notes of front line staff. Analysis reveals an overarching reliance on discourses of youth responsibilisation in the service files, where the risks which young people are exposed to were perceived as rational choices rather than contextual factors that needed to be accounted for in case management and service plans. Front line workers discussed case plans in terms of youth being willing or unwilling, compliant or non-compliant with regard to programming. This view of youth as autonomous actors had repercussions for youth who did not present as ‘co-operative’ and ‘mature’. The article concludes with a reflection on the role of services in the lives of vulnerable youth and implications for practice.
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 | 0.031 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.135 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".