A significant solidus: Punctuating sexual exploitation with discretionary practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this article, I report on a study that examined how young people are framed within formalized child welfare reviews. The study examined reports of serious case reviews (SCRs) in England over a 6‐year period, 2008–2016. I report on a data set on sexual exploitation. I focus on both the professionals and the reviewers, who are considered experts in child protection. The study focused on two aspects: one, how did professionals produce a “young person,” and two, how is the cultural identity of a young person represented within, and (re)produced by, these documents. A thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. I report on both the semantic and latent levels, discussing the words and phrases used, and the meaning they carry as situated across multiple SCRs. The analysis revealed that young people are literally seen through a visual lens, figuratively through a series of labels and produced as an autonomous, free subject. I conclude by arguing that age is applied in a visual and highly problematic way.
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 | 0.031 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| 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".