The Travelling Idea of Looking After Children: Conditions for moulding a systematic approach in child welfare into three national contexts—Australia, Canada and Sweden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Looking After Children (LAC) is an approach (care philosophy and working tools) used to assess the psycho-social development of children being cared for by child welfare agencies. It is an international initiative that was developed in England and then travelled and was translated into other contexts, most notably Australia, Canada and Sweden. This paper presents findings from an open-ended question in a survey distributed to social workers and managers using LAC and “cousin” systems in these countries. We asked respondents what advice they would give to others considering implementing these systems. Our qualitative content analyses showed that, regardless of the context, the 257 respondents gave voice to programmatic/normative arguments, reflecting mainly positive attitudes to the systems. However, managers and social workers voiced different arguments in their favour. Managers voiced normative arguments favouring the underlying principles, whereas social workers from all three countries identified the dual needs to remain flexible and to recognise the limitations of the systems, especially at the operational level. Results offer insights into approaches to change management in different contexts.
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 | 0.022 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".