Constructing Family from a Social Work Perspective in Child Welfare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The transformative reality of diverse Canadian families is outpacing national and provincial statutes and policies. Social workers in child welfare agencies are faced with the complex task of making decisions about families while working within the confines of national/provincial statutes and social policies, as well as within agency structures. They attempt to balance the rights of diverse Canadian families and still protect children at risk of harm with the principle of the ‘best interest of the child’. The purpose of this qualitative case study was to explore the construction of ‘family’ and decisions about family life in protection services from the perspective of professional social workers in the prairie region of Canada. Social workers from several urban communities were invited to participate in focus groups. During the focus group discussions, themes of social worker’s nuanced and somewhat fluid understandings of family did not always converge with current legal and professional notions of families. Study findings suggest that social workers’ construction of family and the decisions they make about family life involve three primary themes: ‘acceptance of diverse understandings of family’; ‘safety and the best interest of the child’, and ‘professional discretionary decisions’
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".