Child Protection Decision Making: A Factorial Analysis Using Case Vignettes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored decision making by child protection social workers in the province of British Columbia, Canada. A factorial survey method was used in which case vignettes were constructed by randomly assigning a number of key characteristics associated with decision making in child protection. Child protection social workers (n = 118) assessed case vignettes (n = 327) for risk, service provision, and importance of client contact. In British Columbia, child protection social workers are expected to make decisions using a risk assessment model. However, as social workers begin to work with clients to facilitate change, relationship factors such as home visits and client contact also become important. The research indicated that social workers made decisions through an integration of objective, procedural, and experiential knowledge. Decisions about risk and service provision were influenced by technocratic knowledge, such as the risk assessment model. Decisions related to the amount of contact with clients and other supportive functions were influenced by individual characteristics of the social workers. The results suggest that in child protection decision making, social workers are moving beyond a reliance on objective tools such as risk assessment to also use internalized subjective knowledge.
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 | 0.016 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".