Especialización en coordinación de (co)parentalidad: ¿cuáles son las competencias necesarias para ejercer?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
espanolEn los inicios de la coordinacion de (co)parentalidad en los Estados Unidos, los pioneros provenian del campo de la salud mental, de la mediacion y del derecho de familia. Cada uno de estos profesionales aportaba un saber propio de su profesion al trabajo como coordinador/a de (co)parentalidad (CP) pero insuficiente para el ejercicio del nuevo rol hibrido de forma competente. El proposito de este articulo es revisar las areas de especializacion y los requisitos legales que se han descrito en Estados Unidos y Canada, asi como avanzar unos conceptos para estimular debates en el contexto de la futura regulacion del rol del profesional del/la coordinador de (co)parentalidad en Espana. Los autores proponen establecer un modelo de requisitos para basado en la demostracion de las competencias necesarias (conocimientos, habilidades y actitudes), fundamentales y funcionales, asi como el compromiso con la supervision de casos dada la complejidad y con la formacion continua. EnglishIn the early days of (co)parenting coordination in the United States (US), the pioneers came from the field of mental health, mediation, and family law. Each of these professionals contributed with their professional knowledge to the work as (co)parenting coordinators (PC), but this was insufficient to perform this new hybrid role competently. The purpose of this paper is to review the areas of specialization and the legal requirements that have been described in the US and Canada as well as to advance some concepts to stimulate debate in the context of the future regulation of the professional role of the (co-)parenting coordinator in Spain. The authors propose to establish a requirement model based on the proof of the necessary competences (knowledge, skills and attitudes), both fundamental and functional, as well as the commitment to case supervision, in view of their complexity, and to ongoing education.
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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".