Building a Child and Youth Care Culture of Relational-Centred Praxis: Ours to Make
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our purpose here is to draw upon the insights, perspectives, and ideas we have acquired in life and in our professional practice experiences as child and youth care (CYC) students, practitioners, and educators so we can frame a much needed discussion about the concept of praxis as considered from a relational ontological perspective. Our premise is that to truly fulfil the vision of being a relational-centred profession grounded in the core values and principles of trust, fairness, integrity, honesty, caring, tolerance, and respect for diversity and equality, CYC practitioners must reach deeper into the nuance of the concept of praxis to fully grasp its meaning from a relational-centred perspective. Thus, we present the case that a teaching and learning pedagogy that encourages critical thinking and promotes relational-centred praxis is more likely to bring about the deep learning and self-refection CYC practitioners must acquire to generate the inspiration, confidence, competence, and moral courage necessary to act as transformational leaders in the field.
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 | 0.033 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.035 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".