Children and childhood in Chile
Bibliographic record
Abstract
EnglishThis study explores understandings of children and childhood among 21 social workers from five child protection services in Chile. To help grasp multiple ideas about children and childhood, we use Q methodology and the ‘child visibility’ concept. The object is to explore dissimilar and/or similar views on child visibility among social workers and the characteristics of these viewpoints. The results reveal three distinct views on child visibility. Based on the characteristics of these perspectives, we have conceptualized the workers associated with them as: activists, buffers and experts. The activists vigorously seek children’s own perspectives, and produce an image of capable children with unique perspectives. The buffers and the experts, however, typically define children’s needs from their own perspectives. Nevertheless, through differing logics, the experts focus on children’s vulnerability and protection needs, while the buffers are more inclined to view children in terms of their contextual risk and on the margins in an underfunded child protection context. Despite these differences, there are shared viewpoints among the social workers, for example, by understanding children as relational. The results are discussed in light of current theory within childhood studies. SpanishNiños e infancia en Chile: Perspectivas de los trabajadores sociales.Este estudio explora las concepciones que sobre los niños y la infancia desarrollan 21 trabajadores sociales de cinco servicios de protección infantil en Chile. Para comprender estas múltiples ideas, utilizamos la Metodología Q y el concepto de “visibilidad del niño”. El objeto es explorar perspectivas similares o diferentes respecto a la visión que tienen los trabajadores sociales sobre este grupo social, así como las características de esos puntos de vista. Los resultados revelan tres tipos de visión distintivos sobre los niños. Con base a las características de estas tres perspectivas, hemos conceptualizado a los trabajadores sociales asociados con ellas como: activistas, baluartes, y expertos. Los activistas buscan vigorosamente las perspectivas de los propios infantes y producen una imagen de que los niños poseen capacidades y perspectivas únicas. Los otros dos grupos, sin embargo, típicamente definen las necesidades de los niños desde sus propias representaciones. A través de lógicas distintas, los expertos se enfocan en la vulnerabilidad de los infantes y sus necesidades de protección; mientras los baluartes están más inclinados a ver a los niños en términos de sus propios riesgos contextuales, y en los márgenes de un contexto de protección infantil con financiación insuficiente. A pesar de estas diferencias, existen puntos de vista comunes entre los trabajadores sociales, por ejemplo, al entender a los niños en términos relacionales. Estos resultados son discutidos a la luz de las teorías actuales dentro de los estudios de la infancia.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".