The Manifest and Latent Functions of Differential Response in Child Welfare
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although previous research has explored the efficacy of differential response (DR) programs in child welfare, there have been no studies to date about coding decisions between designations by child protection service agencies. Research has explored client satisfaction with DR as well as rates of recidivism and removal/placement but with limited attention paid to the rationales behind coding decisions and recoding, once an initial designation pathway is assigned. This descriptive study uses data previously gathered by child protection social workers to qualitatively evaluate the fidelity of implementation of family development response (FDR) in British Columbia and the integrity of the program with regard to its stated objectives. Based on a random sample of intakes, decision-making fidelity to code as FDR or investigation (INV) was examined by exploring rationales behind coding at critical decision points and mechanisms for recoding during family involvement with child protective services. Subsequently, this study examined whether cases that had been coded as FDR differed substantially from INVs in terms of service provision, outcomes, and appropriateness of FDR for high-risk cases.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it