Beschuldigingen van kindermishandeling en echtscheidingsconflicten. Reactie op De Ruiter & Van Pol (2017)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Beschuldigingen van kindermishandeling en echtscheidingsconflicten. Reactie op De Ruiter & Van Pol (2017) De Ruiter en Van Pol (2017) presenteren als vaststaand feit dat slechts 10% of minder van alle beschuldigingen van kindermishandeling in echtscheidingsconflicten vals is. Sociale en juridische professionals die in een enquête een hoger percentage invulden, hebben volgens de auteurs te weinig kennis. De zekerheid die De Ruiter en Van Pol suggereren bestaat niet. Ten eerste verzuimen zij om de kernbegrippen ‘vals’, ‘beschuldiging’, ‘kindermishandeling’ en ‘echtscheidingsconflicten’ te definiëren. Ten tweede kan het onderzoek waar De Ruiter en Van Pol naar verwijzen hun conclusies niet dragen. Canadese maatschappelijk werkers registreerden slechts in een klein aantal gevallen dat een beschuldiging opzettelijk vals was. De Canadese auteurs wijzen expliciet op het subjectieve karakter van de bron van onderzoek. In meer dan de helft van alle onderzochte zaken was het onzeker gebleven of de beschuldiging op waarheid berust. Ten derde gaat het om onderzoeken naar de praktijk van de kinderbescherming in Canada en Australië van 20 jaar geleden. Dat wil zeggen: een andere tijd in andere landen, met een ander systeem dan vandaag in Nederland. Sociale en juridische professionals moeten werken met een aanzienlijke marge van onzekerheid, ook wanneer er grondig onderzoek naar de feiten gedaan is. Door deze onzekerheid te negeren mist de kritiek van De Ruiter en Van Pol op grote groepen professionals onderbouwing. --- De Ruiter & Van Pol (2017) present as a fact, that only 10% or less of all allegations of child abuse and neglect in divorce disputes is false. They state that social workers and lawyers who in a survey estimated a higher percentage have a lack of knowledge. With this position De Ruiter & Van Pol claim a grade of certainty that does not exist in child protection practice. First, the authors fail to define the key concepts ‘false’, ‘allegation’, ‘child abuse’ and ‘divorce disputes’. Second, the research De Ruiter & Van Pol refer to does not carry the conclusions they draw. The Canadian researchers report that child protection workers had classified a small percentage of cases as ‘intentionally fabricated’. However, the researchers make reservations about this finding since the source is the clinical judgment of the social workers. Moreover the researches emphasize that custody disputes is a context in which there is a high rate of unsubstantiated allegations. In fact, over 50% of all cases were not substantiated. Third, the three publications De Ruiter & Van Pol point at describe the practice in Australia and Canada twenty years ago. That is a different time in different countries with different systems compared to The Netherlands today. Social workers and judicial professionals work in a context of uncertainty about allegations and facts in many cases, even after thorough investigation in a particular case. In overlooking this uncertainty De Ruiter & Van Pol unfairly criticize large groups of professionals.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.005 |
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".